Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TENTS (TRANSPORT TO ITALY)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the purposes of his Department in transporting four white tents to Italy; and what is the estimated cost of the hire and transportation.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): A marquee, buffet tent and two small service tents have been hired and transported to Rome for a reception to be given in the garden of Her Majesty's Legation to the Holy See, on 5th May, on the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen.
The contract cost of hire and transport is £850.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although this sum is relatively small, it has offended many people in the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, it has. Can he tell us what is the difference between using a white tent transported from this country and using a coloured tent made in Italy? When will this kind of extravagant nonsense stop?

Mr. Godber: I would not accept for a moment that this expenditure has offended people in this country. I believe that if Her Majesty the Queen is willing to undertake these duties, it is our duty to see that she is properly provided for. We endeavoured to acquire a marquee in Rome, but none was available and it was for that reason that this one was sent out.

Mr. Shaw: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that this was in fact the

cheapest means of providing adequate facilities for this reception?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I can give that assurance. Inquiries such as we made showed that any alternative which we were able to obtain in Rome would have cost at least £1,200 and might have cost more, so that this was the cheapest form available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNISIA (UNITED KINGDOM INFORMATION SERVICES)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Lord Privy Seal what facilities are provided by his Department for the dissemination in Tunisia of information about Great Britain.

Mr. Godber: Since the reply is long, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. du Cann: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of latent good will towards the United Kingdom in Tunis and that in particular there is a demand for facilities to learn English, and that the local personnel are doing an excellent job representing the British point of view, although with not very adequate facilities? Will my hon. Friend be good enough to consult his right hon. Friend to see whether some improvement can be made in these facilities, which would seem to be very worth while?

Mr. Godber: I would not dissent from what my hon. Friend has said about the need and the benefit which might result from an extension of our services, but I ask him to study the reply, when he will see that much is already covered. However, we are giving further consideration to what assistance and help we can give in this matter.

Following is the reply:
Her Majesty's Embassy in Tunis has an Information Section staffed by a Foreign Service Information Officer and five locally-engaged assistants. The Embassy keep in close touch with the Tunisian Press and radio and good use is made of Press material originating from the United Kingdom. Radio Tunis also uses Central Office of Information tape recordings supplied through the Information Section of the Embassy.
The Embassy maintains a Library of approximately three thousand books. British newspapers and periodicals are available in the Embassy Information Centre and publications


supplied by the Regional Information Office, attached to the Embassy in Beirut, are distributed.
The Embassy Information Section also maintains a library of Central Office of Information and British Council films which are available on loan. The Central Office of Information supplies newsreel material on events of special interest for incorporation in the Tunisian Government's official newsreels.
The publication of "Huna London", publicising British Broadcasting Corporation radio transmissions to Tunis and North Africa is distributed on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation, whose Arabic Service is of course highly audible in Tunisia.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the negotiations for a ban on nuclear explosions.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the latest developments in the Geneva nuclear tests talks.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Conference on the cessation of nuclar tests.

Mr. Godber: On 18th April the United States and United Kingdom delegations jointly tabled in the Conference a complete draft treaty which they would be prepared to sign immediately. This text embodied the proposals put forward by the Western delegations on 21st March, as well as treaty language already agreed with the Russians. It was, however, made clear to the Russians that we were prepared to discuss this draft patiently and in detail.
I am sorry to say that we are still waiting for constructive Soviet replies to the proposals we put forward on 21st March.

Mr. Healey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Opposition welcome the many improvements in the Western proposals which were submitted by the Western delegations and regret the fact that the Soviet Government have so far failed even, I think, to refer to them? Will the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Western delegations have considered Mr. Khrushchev's proposal for introducing a triple veto into all

organs of inspection and control? Does he not agree that to introduce a veto into the organs of inspection in that way would be a very retrograde step?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Member about that. This proposal for a triumvirate in the administration would be very damaging and we have made it clear to the Russians that we could not possibly accept such a proposal.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would the hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper containing the full text of the proposed draft treaty and other relevant information which would enable the public to have a proper appreciation of what is taking place at the Conference?

Mr. Godber: I should like to think about that and to consult my right hon. Friend. There might be some merit in it, for this is a very complicated and difficult matter for the public to follow.

Mr. Allaun: Could not the British spokesman bridge the alarming gulf between America and Russia by proposing that within the suggested tripartite control commission there should be a two-thirds majority to decide, as that would help to give the neutral bloc great influence?

Mr. Godber: I do not know that I can follow the hon. Member in that. I would not say that the British in this case could seek to bridge the gap between the Americans and Russians, because we have worked very closely with the Americans and any proposals which have been put forward by us or the Americans have been joint proposals. We are working very closely with the Americans in this sphere.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Does not my hon. Friend agree that anti-nuclear demonstrations, in so far as they are an attempt to misrepresent public opinion here, are likely to hinder rather than help these neogtiations?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a definite danger that there will be misunderstanding if too much importance is attached to what is a fringe reaction of people in this country and which certainly does not represent the view of the great mass of British people.

Mr. Longbottom: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there have now been more than 300 meetings of the nuclear test conference, during which time the United Kingdom delegate has done everything to obtain agreement while a final solution has always been thwarted by Russian intransigence?

Mr. Godber: Yes, there has been a large number of these meetings and we are very disappointed that we have not made more progress, especially in the last few weeks when real efforts have been made by the Western side. We still hope that the Russians will come forward with some positive reactions to these proposals, which have been a genuine attempt to bring this matter to a conclusion, which is wanted by all people in this country.

Mr. Warbey: Will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) for a two-thirds majority in the control commission? Will he recognise that this is a principle which would be of very useful general application in the whole field of disarmament and that the Russians have agreed to the idea of a two-thirds majority in the control commission for general disarmament, so that this is something which might prove acceptable to them and a way of finding a solution in terms of political realities in the world as it is today?

Mr. Godber: The question of the constitution of the control commission has been investigated very thoroughly. We have made proposals which we think should lead to a solution and the proposals which we have put forward go quite as far as one could hope to do to meet the Russian point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARA-MILITARY FORCES (TRAINING AND USE)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place in the Councils of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, and Central Treaty Organisation on the training and operational use of para-military forces to assist anti-Communist forces operating within the territories covered by these alliances.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The proceedings of the three Councils in all matters are confidential.

Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that President Kennedy's idea of combating alleged Communism from China to Peru and from Cuba to South Vietnam by paramilitary forces is in conflict with the United Nations Charter and is highly dangerous to world peace? Will he give an undertaking to oppose it with all the means at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government in all these alliances, even to the extent of pointing out that, if the safety of this country is threatened by such proposals, we cannot remain a member of the alliances if they are persisted in?

Mr. Heath: That misrepresentation of President Kennedy's views has no relevance to this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Government regarding British policy in the United Nations in the event of a further invasion of Cuba.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal what negotiations have taken place with the United States Government regarding a commitment for joint action on the part of the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the event of war between the United States of America and Cuba.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that while the American Government have denied giving direct military aid to the abortive invasion, it is now clear that they gave very widespread indirect aid? Has not President Kennedy made clear that this is likely to be repeated, and, just as America restrained us when we attacked Suez—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—would not it be a good thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would not it be useful to peace if we restrained America?

Mr. Heath: This matter was discussed in the United Nations and a resolution


was passed at the United Nations in which we supported the matter being referred to the O.A.S. and that is where the matter should rest.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give a definite assurance that we shall not join in any war which may be caused by American intervention in Cuba?

Mr. Heath: Our obligations are perfectly cleanly laid down in the treaties which we have with our allies and in the United Nations Charter.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Has my right hon. Friend noted that Castro has said that as a Socialist he will do away with all official opposition?

Mr. Heath: I also understood that he was to go further and abolish all elections.

Mr. Healey: I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal would not wish to mislead the House. Is not he aware that the resolution which was passed at the United Nations did not in fact transfer the problem of Cuba to the Organisation of American States, this clause in the Argentine Resolution having failed to receive the requisite majority assent? Would he agree that hostilities in the Western Hemisphere, as in the Eastern Hemisphere, are properly a matter for the United Nations as a whole?

Mr. Heath: They have indeed been discussed by the United Nations as a whole and dealt with by them.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question?

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received in the last few days from his representative at the United Nations about events in and around Cuba.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Are the British Government any better informed on the events in Cuba than was Mr. Dulles? Will the British Government tell America that they are opposed to any repeat performance or any moves by the American Navy either to invade or to blockade Cuba? May we have that assurance?

Mr. Heath: The Question asked whether we had received any more information from the United Nations. There

has been no further debate about it since the resolution was passed, and we have received no information in addition to that.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that in fact the attempt to refer this matter to the Organisation of American States was defeated? Will he, further, give an assurance that we shall not support any attempt to by-pass the United Nations by referring the matter to the Organisation of American States if the State concerned desires it to be heard by the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: Yes, I accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made about the actual clause and the amendment to the resolution. The position of the regional organisations is clearly laid down in the Charter, in Articles 52, 53, and 54. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the United Nations. If the United Nations likes to refer it to the regional organisations, as it has on occasions done in the past, it is entitled to do so.

Mr. Healey: The Lord Privy Seal seems to be deliberately confusing counsel on this issue. Will not he confirm, as he was asked to do by my right hon. Friend, that in fact the United Nations Assembly did not pass this to the Organisation of American States, and therefore the latter part of his answer is completely incorrect and unfounded?

Mr. Heath: I accepted the first part of the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). He asked in the second part for an assurance that we would not refer the matter to the Organisation of American States or any regional organisation if the country concerned did not wish it. I pointed out that the opportunity for the United Nations to do that if they wished by a majority vote is laid down in Articles 52, 53 and 54 of the Charter.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that it was a great disaster when the question of Guatemala was referred to the O.A.S. in 1954, and will he look at what his right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said about that event at the time?

Mr. Heath: I have read what my right hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion. It has, of course, to a certain extent been misrepresented, and I cannot entirely accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman which were expressed in the first part of his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL (EICHMANN TRIAL)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government received an invitation from the Israeli Government to send an official observer to the Eichmann trial; and what reply was sent.

Mr. Godber: All diplomatic missions in Israel were informed some time ago that they should apply to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs if they wished a permanent seat at the trial to be reserved for them. We were later told informally that seats at the trial could be provided for legal observers. We decided on practical grounds, in view of the very full Press coverage which the trial would receive, not to take up either offer.

Dr. Thompson: In view of the overwhelming historical importance of this trial, in view of the contribution which Britain made to the ending of the tragic era that this trial represents, and in view of its importance to Israel and to humanity at large, would not the Minister agree that it would have been more sensible for the British Government to have followed the example of nearly every other Government in the world and accepted this invitation?

Mr. Godber: No. I do not think that mere attendance at the trial has any implication. Our position in relation to this matter is abundantly clear. I do not think that merely attending the trial would have made any difference.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO

Mr. Driberg: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on recent events in the Congo; how many British officers, serving with the United Nations forces, have been killed or injured; how many Britons are or have been serving with the irregular forces in Katanga and elsewhere; what official advice has been given to them; and

what information he has on the detention of Mr. Tshombe.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from the United Nations in Leopoldville concerning the death of two British officers serving with the Ghanaian contingent with the United Nations forces in the Congo; and what representations have been made to the Congolese authorities in Leopoldville.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what information he has received from the United Nations about the detention in Leopoldville of President Moisé Tshombe of Katanga;
(2) whether, in view of its effect on the security of British territories in Central Africa, he will make a statement about the situation in Katanga.

Mr. Heath: The most important recent events in the Congo have been the agreement on co-operation concluded in Leopoldville and New York between Mr. Kasavubu and United Nations authorities and the present Conference of Congolese leaders at Coquilhatville. Our information is that Mr. Tshombe is being detained at Coquilhatville by Congolese forces during the Conference. Our representative at the United Nations has been instructed to urge the United Nations authorities to use their good offices to secure Mr. Tshombe's release and return to the conference table. Meanwhile in Elisabethville and South Kasai Province the situation remains calm.
I regret to say that two British officers, Captain T. G. Ralph and Lieutenant A. P. G. Brown, serving with the Ghana contingent in the Kasai Province, are reported missing at Port Francqui. Full information about this incident has been sought from the United Nations authorities. May I add how much we regret the casualties which have occurred at Port Francqui to Ghanaian, and perhaps also Swedish, soldiers.
There were about 40 United Kingdom nationals in the armed forces of the Katanga, of whom 12 were detained by the United Nations at Kabalo and are in the course of being repatriated. As far as I know, no British subjects are serving in a similar capacity in other parts of the Congo. Consular officers


in the Congo have been instructed to bring to the attention of those concerned the measures which I announced in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) on 12th April.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that, although our views on the status of Mr. Tshombe may differ, nobody wants him to be subjected to any physical harm as a reprisal for the murder of Mr. Lumumba, but as Mr. Tshombe is, in a sense, what is described in this country as someone whom "the police would like to interview because he may be able to help them with their inquiries", would the right hon. Gentleman seek, if possible, to have him transferred to United Nations custody, so that he may be able to help with the inquiries that are presumably going on, or ought to be going on, into the murder of Mr. Lumumba?

Mr. Heath: In the United Nations we have supported the motion that there should be an inquiry into the death of Mr. Lumumba, and that is proceeding. We are anxious that Mr. Tshombe should be able to take part in this conference to produce reconciliation between the leaders of the Congo.

Mr. Marsh: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports suggesting that the two British officers who were, at least, arrested, may well have been shot while in captivity, and if that subsequently proves to be the case, will Her Majesty's Government make the strongest representations in what appears to be another example of cold-blooded murder?

Mr. Heath: I have seen those reports, and as we have not had confirmation of them, I have stated it very clearly in my Answer in that way.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of what The Times in its first leading article describes as the partisanship of certain U.N. officials, will Her Majesty's Government continue to press for the release of Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Kimba and their return to their own people, and not for their release into the hands of the United Nations as suggested by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)? Further, does not the concentration of U.N. forces on Kamina, in peaceful territory, instead of in North Kasai where there is disorder, constitute a threat to the

independence and integrity of Katanga? Will the Government, therefore, cease stopping British subjects from helping the defence of this friendly, African nationalist community?

Mr. Heath: As to the release of Mr. Tshombe, I have very clearly described in my Answer what the representative of the United Nations is doing. Kamina is a main base suitable for forces, and there is, after all, considerable disturbance in North Katanga owing to tribal warfare, but in any case the disposition of these forces is bound to be a matter for the U.N. commander. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we are carrying out our obligations under the United Nations resolution of 21st February.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether any of the 40 British nationals were recruited in this country?

Mr. Heath: I have no knowledge of that, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the negotiations for a cease-fire in Laos.

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what assistance the United Kingdom and Russian Governments have given to the rival forces in Laos to enable them to negotiate a cease-fire.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present situation in Laos.

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received regarding the response to the call for a cease-fire in Laos.

Mr. Heath: Since I made my last statement, military representatives of the two sides in Laos managed to make contact in no-man's-land in the Vang Vieng sector on 1st May. It was expected in Vientiane today that there would be further meetings which may well have taken place by now but I have no confirmation that this is the case. No details are available but I understand that a de facto cease-fire is now operative on the front north of


Vientiane and if the talks go well this should be extended shortly to other fronts. Both the Pathet Lao command and Captain Kong Lae have broadcast over their radios instructions to their forces to cease fire.
Her Majesty's Government have used their diplomatic resources to help to bring about these negotiations.
We have now received the report of the International Control Commission, with which we are entirely in agreement, and Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to discuss with the Soviet Co-Chairman the arrangements for the return of the Commission to Laos.

Mr. Henderson: Has the Lord Privy Seal seen the report in The Times this morning to the effect that, following the arrangement of the cease-fire throughout the whole of Laos, political discussions are to take place between both sides—that is to say, the Government and Pathet Lao? Can we be told whether that is likely to delay the ratification of any cease-fire by the Control Commission?

Mr. Heath: Not as we understand it, no.

Mr. Johnson: While we must all be thankful that the cease-fire has now been arranged, might not the tension and danger of recent days have been obviated if the United Kingdom Government and Russia had offered their own services to facilitate a meeting, rather than issue an appeal for a cease-fire without making any concrete suggestions?

Mr. Heath: It was the view of the Soviet co-Chairman that the co-Chairmen should issue the appeal, and the actual arrangements for the cease-fire were bound to be a matter for the forces taking part. Naturally, we offered all our facilities where we could and used what influence we could to bring that about.

Mr. Rankin: From our latest information, and from what the Lord Privy Seal has just said, it is the case, is it not, that Pathet Lao have laid down their arms and accepted the cease-fire? Is that also true of the Royalist forces? At the moment, it would seem not to be so. Did the right hon. Gentleman confute that statement?

Mr. Heath: What has happened, as we understand from a monitored broadcast, is that Pathet Lao has radioed to its forces, and Kong Lae to some of his, ordering the cease-fire—

Mr. Rankin: Have they accepted it?

Mr. Heath: That is why I have made this statement in rather careful terms, because we have not had direct information from the area that it has in fact happened yet. But General Phoumi has certainly shown extremely good faith in moving towards this cease-fire, proposing the place, and sending his troops forward under a flag of truce into no-man's-land, and I have no doubt at all that he will carry out the cease-fire.

Mr. Healey: Surely, such progress, slow as it may be, towards a cease-fire is the strongest argument against hasty unilateral action and intervention on either side in this affair. Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the cease-fire agreement is intended to cover the supply of armaments to either side from foreign countries?

Mr. Heath: These talks are being carried on by representatives of the opposing forces and we have not yet had any information about the terms on which they have agreed, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the answer to the last part of his supplementary question is.

Mr. Healey: Surely Her Majesty's Government have reached some understanding with their Soviet co-Chairman as to whether a cease-fire should imply the cessation of external military aid to the two sides that were previously fighting—or is that not the case?

Mr. Heath: We have always urged that the greatest restraint should be shown in these supplies, and there is a greater possibility of doing that once an actual cease-fire has been secured.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a step further and express the view of Her Majesty's Government that no foreign military aid should be given to either side in Laos following the arrangement for a cease-fire?

Mr. Heath: I would be very careful in remarking on this, because these are matters to be arranged between those taking part in the cease-fire agreement.

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United States Government concerning the establishment of the military liaison group at a time when a cease-fire was being called in Laos.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at a time when the most delicate negotiations were proceeding between this country and Russia about the situation in Laos the decision of the United States Government that its advisers in Laos should be put into uniform and re-formed as the United States assistance advisory group to the Royal Laotian Government and permitted to be present with the Government forces in advanced positions was a most unwise one which might have a serious effect on the negotiation of the cease-fire?

Mr. Heath: It was not a case of the United States sending a military mission to the area. What happened was that the instructors had been with the Royal Laotian Forces for some considerable time as a group of programme evaluation officers, and their description was changed to that of a military advisory aid group so that they might be put into uniform and moved forward with the troops which they were training. The decision to do this was taken before the co-Chairmen issued their request for a cease-fire.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Soviet Government concerning the continued supply of arms to the Pathet Lao.

Mr. Heath: Since it was first known that the Soviet airlift of arms to the Pathet Lao had begun, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has left the Soviet Government in no doubt as to our views about the danger of it.
We hope that once the cease-fire has been declared, all concerned will show great restraint in this matter. Control of these supplies is one of the matters to be handled at the conference.

Mr. Hannan: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Press reports over the week-end which continue to allege that such supplies are still going into

Laos? Will he make it quite clear that this House would deplore tendentious reports which were wilfully calculated to sow distrust in an area where agreement would be so valuable? Can he state whether, when he received the assurances from the Soviet Union and when they issued an appeal for a cease-fire, they gave an assurance at the same time that they would stop the supply of arms?

Mr. Heath: I did not say in my reply that the Soviet Union had given any assurances. I said that we had made plain our view that it would be extremely dangerous if such assistance should be flown in.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he will put before the Geneva Conference to ensure international acceptance of the neutral status of Laos.

Mr. Heath: The aim of Her Majesty's Government is to establish a neutral, united and independent Laos, but it would be premature to put forward proposals to this end at this stage.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give serious consideration to the proposal I put to him a couple of months ago that Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam should be withdrawn from the designated areas of the Manila Treaty? Does he recognise that the preservation of the right of military intervention by one of the military alliances would be totally incompatible with a neutrality status for Laos?

Mr. Heath: The means by which a neutral, united, and independent Laos can be achieved and security given to it must be a matter for the conference to settle.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the International Commission will be able to control and prevent this supply of arms by either side to either side?

Mr. Heath: The instructions to the International Control Commission are to supervise and control the cease-fire.

Mr. Rankin: Does that mean the supply of arms to both sides?

Mr. Heath: We hope that the greatest restraint will be shown in the supply of


arms. So far as the first stage is concerned, that is a matter for agreement between the parties now meeting to bring about a cease-fire. So far as the permanent arrangement is concerned, that comes under the terms of reference of the conference which will have to decide how the future status of Laos is to be secured.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give an assurance that, in the current discussions on Laos, the Government will oppose any form of military intervention in any circumstances.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Minister aware that a policy of military intervention in Laos could very well lead at the best to a Korean war and at the worst to a world war? This situation is now arising in Laos, and unless the Western Powers part company with these doctrines there is no hope whatever of any disarmament agreement or any move towards peace.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have striven very hard in these last few months to bring about a peaceful solution of the conflict in Laos. It now seems that we may be within reach of that. The fact still remains—this is really the answer to the hon. Member's supplementary question—that we have our obligations under the Treaty of Manila, but of course we hope that we can bring about a peaceful settlement and have a conference which will ensure the neutrality, unity and independence of Laos.

Mr. Healey: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the declaration by all 81 Communist and Workers' Parties claiming the right of military intervention in any conflict which they regard as anti-colonial, is the greatest possible threat to peace at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST SHEIKDOMS (ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the total of military and other assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to the sheikdoms in the Middle East, including Bahrain and Muscat and Oman.

Mr. Heath: The total estimate of economic and military assistance to the

Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for 1961 to 1962 is £2,774,325.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is exceedingly foolish in this day and age for so much military assistance to be provided to prop up unpopular, corrupt and feudal regimes? Will he consider increasing the proportion of aid provided for education and social needs and for economic development?

Mr. Heath: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his past experience of the use of extravagent language, would have been rather careful over what he said about those parts of the word. This aid is used so that these countries may be able to defend themselves and to bring themselves to that stage of development which is desirable. With regard to civil aid also, we are only too anxious to help to the maximum extent.

Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is a reasonable credit balance here?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (COMPENSATION CLAIMS)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many British claimants await compensation from the Egyptian Government; how much is due; and when it will be paid.

Mr. Heath: The United Arab Republic paid to Her Majesty's Government £27½ million as compensation under the Financial Agreement of 28th February, 1959. The Foreign Compensation Commission which administers this Compensation Fund, has received 1,806 applications formulated with details of losses. 953 have been assessed, leaving 853 formulated claims to be determined by the Commission. 2,974 applications have not yet been formulated by the claimants.
As claims are still being received, I cannot say how much will eventually be due in respect of all claims.
Compensation is also due to about 160 British officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government in 1951. Part of this has been paid but the balance still remains to be assessed by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Lipton: While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for all that information, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the British Government hold about £27½ million, of which less than £7 million has so far been disbursed? Even allowing for the fact that a certain number of claims in respect of sequestration have still to be finalised, could not the Government be a little more generous? Surely the Government would not be taking an undue risk if they released rather more of the £27½ million than they have so far done? With regard to the other problem of the officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government, has not the time come for the British Government to apply much more pressure to get this very deserving class of victims speedily recompensed?

Mr. Heath: In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, we have repeatedly urged on the Egyptian Government that they should make a final settlement in this respect, and a commission was set up to deal with this. We understand that the commission has virtually completed its work and that the matter is now being put to the Egyptian Ministers for decision. I hope that we may soon forge ahead with a settlement of this matter.
On the general matter, the number of claims which have still to be formulated—to the very large extent which I have mentioned—together with the considerable amount of property which is in process of being desequestrated, makes a firm calculation difficult. In the second Order in Council which we published before Christmas we went as far as we thought we could in making an additional distribution. It was so weighted that the smaller claims have received very much the larger proportion.

Sir G. Nicholson: The dismissed civil servants are surely in a quite separate category from the others, because they were in contractual relationships with the Egyptian Government. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is disheartening and, indeed, exasperating that these answers should be given year after year by the Government, and that the apparent impression of complete impotence on the part of the British Government and the Foreign Office is really tragic when one thinks of the situation of the men concerned, whose

numbers are dwindling through the natural course of things?

Mr. Heath: These are, of course, two separate problems. We have urged with our utmost strength that the question of the officials who were dismissed should be settled. I hope from the information which I have given to the House that it will be possible to do this fairly soon.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is being alleged on behalf of the ex-Suez Canal pilots, and maybe others, that the Egyptian authorities are themselves putting a lot of counter-claims in the way of the restitution of the money to the former owners under the sequestration laws? Is our Embassy in Cairo sufficiently well staffed to deal with the situation, and is sufficient pressure being applied by the British Government to find out exactly on what grounds the Egyptian Government are doing this?

Mr. Heath: I have heard of individual cases of this nature, but I have not heard of it as being a general procedure. The Embassy in Cairo is staffed to deal with this matter, and Sir George Rendel and his assistants in the Foreign Office have just returned from Cairo after spending some five weeks there going through a large number of cases of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTIC TREATY

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether complete agreement on an Antarctic Treaty has now been reached with Argentina and Chile to ensure the peaceful administration of the Antarctic territories, including the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

Mr. Godber: As the House is aware, the Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on 1st December, 1959, between the Governments of 12 countries including the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile. Article I of this Treaty lays down that Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. Ratification of the Treaty has now been completed by all signatories with the exception of Chile where the Senate has approved it unanimously but where the decision of the Lower House is still awaited. The Treaty will come into force upon the deposit of the instruments of ratification by all the signatory States.

Sir A. Hurd: Now that this welcome agreement has been reached on freeezing territorial claims south of latitude 60 in the Antarctic, is there a reasonable hope that Argentina will be rather less tiresome than she has recently been about the status of the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies?

Mr. Godber: The position of the Falkland Islands, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, is in no way affected by the treaty, but I hope that the stabilising action of getting agreement about the treaty will be of general help in the area.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means in the treaty by "peaceful purposes"? Can he also tell us what value, other than strategic, this area is to us?

Mr. Godber: What I was referring to was largely scientific purposes. There is a great deal of scientific investigation in which a number of countries are interested going on in the area, and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this can be for peaceful purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take the opportunity of his visit to Spain at the end of the month to inform General Franco of the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to any proposal that Spain should be admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the situation, expand that brief Answer a little more? Can he assure us that the return of the Foreign Secretary to his former spiritual home has not resulted in any commitment or arrangement which this country might regret and disapprove of if it knew about it? Can he say whether or not the Government are opposed to the entry of Franco into N.A.T.O. so long as his Government continues in its present way of governing the country?

Mr. Heath: I have several times in the House in recent weeks made plain the position about this matter and that it is not before N.A.T.O. The only

assurance that any Government can give is that when a matter is raised it should be considered in the light of the circumstances of the time, and that is the position of the Government. The visit of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is to help to maintain good relations with a friendly Power.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Would the Minister bear in mind, in view of his Answer, that all sane, mature, and unprejudiced minds in the free world would welcome the inclusion of this great and proud nation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

Mr. Healey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the failure of the Spanish Government to prevent the escape of two rebel generals to join the rebellion against France in Algeria recently constitutes yet another argument against accepting Spain into N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Heath: I really cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks in that context. All sorts of people have difficulty in preventing other people from escaping.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHARTER)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will propose to the Security Council that the International Court of Justice be requested, under Article 96 of the Charter, to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether a Member State has a right to resort to force against another, by supporting counter-revolutionary intervention or otherwise.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Administration has formally claimed the right to resort to force to overthrow the Government of any Latin American State which it regards as Communist? As this claim strikes at the root of the rule of law and might, if acted upon, bring on a world war will he not show publicly, in some way, his concern about, and opposition to, any such doctrine?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that this is a matter to refer to the International Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

School Leavers, Acton

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Labour, how many Easter school leavers are registered this year at Acton Employment Exchange; and how many of these are still awaiting employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): Sixty-eight boys and 60 girls; by 10th April, none was still awaiting employment.

Mr. Holland: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he would agree that the small numbers involved indicate a most encouraging trend among young people towards continuing at school at the end of the scholastic year? Does he not think that employers and potential employers should take note of this change when making future arrangements?

Mr. Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the Acton area, there is a good variety of employment and training opportunities for young people.

Employment Exchange, Rothwell

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour when he intends to provide in the urban district of Rothwell, York shire, a more suitable employment exchange in view of the present office being in an area which is to be redeveloped.

Mr. P. Thomas: The present employment exchange at Rothwell is centrally situated and in a reasonably satisfactory building which, I understand, is not likely to be affected by the demolition of property in the area. The need for re-housing is, however, being kept under review.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that this building is old, dilapidated and quite unsuitable? Does he realise that the building itself, which I used myself over 20 years ago, is a disgrace to the Ministry, and will he give a promise that he will have another look at the Question I have put to him?

Mr. Thomas: As I have said, the need for providing alternative accommodation is being kept under review at the moment. The building is nearly 60 years old, and I agree that it is not very attractive, but the fabric is sound and redecorations were carried out in 1959.

Dockers, Tilbury

Mr. Delargy: asked the Minister of Labour how many dockers at Tilbury have been unemployed on each working day from 1st March, 1961, to the latest convenient date; and how these figures compare with the similar period last year.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

NUMBERS OF DOCK WORKERS AT TILBURY PROVING ATTENDANCE AND FOR WHOM NO WORK WAS AVAILABLE


(1) From 1st March, 1960 to 16th April, 1960:


Date
Number
Date
Number


1st March
127
25th March
203


2nd March
18
26th March
308


3rd March
46
28th March
190


4th March
130
29th March
235


5th March
315
30th March
92


7th March
93
31st March
448


8th March
76
1st April
482


9th March
114
2nd April
423


10th March
37
4th April
18


11th March
11
5th April
84


12th March
289
6th April
5


14th March 
3
7th April
10


15th March
57
8th April
12


16th March
291
9th April
266


17th March 
486
11th April
225


18th March
285
12th April
152


19th March
341
13th April
145


21st March
12
14th April
35


22nd March
6
15th April
Public Holiday


23rd March
8


24th March
53
16th April
190

(2) From 1st March, 1961 to 15th April, 1961:


Date
Number
Date
Number


1st March
159
25th March
490


2nd March
157
27th March
112


3rd March
116
28th March
340


4th March
375
29th March
351


6th March
137
30th March
574


7th March
282
31st March
Public Holiday


8th March
391


9th March
727
1st April
639


10th March
692
3rd April
Public Holiday


11th March
517


13th March
83
4th April
239


14th March
193
5th April
82


15th March
291
6th April
284


16th March
487
7th April
593


17th March
436
8th April
683


18th March
589
10th April
535


20th March
389
11th April
469


21st March
335
12th April
537


22nd March
396
13th April
767


23rd March
417
14th April
576


24th March
424
15th April
574


NOTE: These figures do not include tally clerks.

Tally Clerks, Tilbury

Mr. Delargy: asked the Minister of Labour how many tally clerks have been unemployed at Tilbury on each working day from 1st March, 1961, to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Hare: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Delargy: Can the Minister confirm the information that I have received that in fact there has been unemployment every day during that period and even over a longer period? If that is so, does it not indicate that the fear of unemployment expressed by these men in opposition to the proposed further recruitment was well-founded?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is quite true that there has been an increase in the number proving attendance compared with last year when, as he will remember, the figure was very low. I am sure that he also realises that it is the duty of the National Dock Labour Board in consultation with the local labour board concerned to keep the size of the register under review and to adjust it if necessary. I also understand that the Board expects that some part of the slack will be taken up when the holiday season arrives and the new pension scheme comes into force.

Following is the Table:

NUMBERS OF TALLY CLERKS AT TILBURY PROVING ATTENDANCE FROM 1ST MARCH TO 15TH APRIL, 1961, AND FOR WHOM NO WORK WAS AVAILABLE


Date
Number
Date
Number


1st March
41
25th March
23


2nd March
29
27th March
20


3rd March
20
28th March
30


4th March
45
29th March
44


6th March
19
30th March
57


7th March
21
31st March
Public Holiday


8th March
44


9th March
53
1st April
54


10th March
61
3rd April
Public Holiday


11th March
54


13th March
3
4th April
33


14th March
7
5th April
16


15th March
7
6th April
8


16th March
13
7th April
30


17th March
28
8th April
50


18th March
36
10th April
48


20th March
31
11th April
38


21st March
5
12th April
50


22nd March
4
13th April
65


23rd March
4
14th April
32


24th March
11
15th April
35

Shipyard Workers, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that more shipyard workers in Messrs. Hall, Russells' shipyard, Aberdeen, were paid off on Friday, 14th April, greatly increasing the numbers unemployed there, and that this is inimical to productivity, the export drive, and intake of foreign currency; and if he will take immediate steps to ascertain the cause of this increased unemployment in Aberdeen and have the matter rectified.

Mr. P. Thomas: I am aware that lack of orders has resulted in 45 workers being discharged on 14th April and a further 51 since then. Sixty-three have so far registered at the employment exchange, and, of these, 11 have obtained other employment. The local officers of the Ministry are doing everything possible to assist those registering.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the great national losses referred to in the Question are due largely to the Government's contumacious refusal to implement the Fleck Report? Will he, in conjunction with the relevant Ministers, get cracking on that aspect?

Mr. Thomas: The Fleck Committee's recommendations are at the moment under consideration. Despite the contumelious nature of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will take note of what he has said.

Domestic Service

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the setting up of a wages council to regulate the conditions of employment of people in domestic service.

Mr. P. Thomas: We have no evidence to suggest that a wages council is needed to give statutory protection of the conditions of employment of people in domestic service.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that domestic service is possibly the only remaining sector of employment where employees have no real protection against bad employers? Will he consult his right hon. Friend again and obtain evidence which, I am


sure, he would regard as affording proof that a wages council should be set up in order that minimum conditions and wages should be laid down?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend will give full consideration to any evidence which comes before him of unsatisfactory conditions of employment, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the demand for domestic workers far exceeds the supply, and it seems unlikely that domestic workers would find it difficult to obtain work in reasonable conditions.

Mr. Manuel: I have evidence from my constituency relating to one domestic in a large house who has definite complaints about bad conditions and being asked to work long hours for no added pay. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in making further inquiries, I have found that such things seem to be more widespread than is generally known—[Interruption.]—and this is not a matter which should cause hilarity on the part of some hon. Members opposite who are themselves possibly guilty of such abuses?

Mr. Thomas: I have said that we will certainly consider any evidence which is brought before us, but we have received no representations on the matter. We have no evidence that domestic workers are unable to find reasonable conditions and wages.

Mr. Lee: Is the domestic training scheme which we had at the Ministry of Labour some years ago still in operation, and under that scheme did we not ask for minimum rates compatible with the service rendered?

Mr. Thomas: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the National Institute of Houseworkers. That is still in operation, and the Ministry of Labour makes annually a substantial grant to it.

Immigrants (Unemployment)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that there is still a high rate of unemployment in many areas amongst coloured immigrants, if he will consult with the Secretary of State for the Home Department with a view to the introduction of legislation to stop all further immigration until the existing problems of employment,

housing, and health have been solved; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hare: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter which is being closely considered by the Government. I have nothing to add to recent statements on the subject.

Mr. Osborne: Does the unrestricted immigration of coloured people into this country cause my right hon. Friend no anxieties at all?

Mr. Hare: As I have just said, the Government are considering the position, and statements have been made recently by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again the suggestion I put to the Government in 1954 that they might convene a conference of local authorities particularly concerned in this matter with a view to finding a reasonable solution to the problems involved?

Mr. Hare: I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said. The Government are studying the problem and will take into consideration the views of local authorities and others.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of people will probably be very much opposed to any control of immigration, and that the real way to settle problems such as that created by West Indian immigration is to provide living conditions in the West Indies which will be a magnet for employment there, and that this can be done only by safeguarding Commonwealth trade?

Mr. Hare: As is obvious, there are differing views on this question. There is a problem, and the solution must be thought out very carefully. The Government are doing that.

Mr. Lee: Did we not hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that he proposes to introduce a payroll tax because of the shortage of labour in this country?

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour which are the six areas where coloured immigrant unemployment shows the highest figures; what they are in each case; what percentage they are of the total for the area; and


why they are finding difficulty in obtaining employment.

Mr. Hare: The six Ministry of Labour regions with the greatest number of unemployed Commonwealth immigrants are London and South Eastern, Midland, North Western, East and West Ridings, North Midland, and Eastern and Southern. The greatest concentrations are in London and the Midlands. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest available figures for which the hon. Member asks.
The majority of Commonwealth immigrants are unemployed for relatively short periods. Some of them, however, find difficulty in obtaining employment because they lack the necessary aptitude and experience for the vacancies which are available.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that it was publicly stated in one of the London districts that half the unemployed were coloured people, and in view of the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) which shows that hon. Members now fear unemployment, does not my right hon. Friend think that something should be done to control the flood into this country if only through a threat from an employment point of view?

Mr. Hare: I do not wish to weary the House by repetition. There is a problem, and that is why the Government are considering it. I think it important, however, in view of my hon. Friend's Questions, that I should say that, of the unemployed coloured immigrants we are considering, one-third are women and two-thirds have been unemployed for less than eight weeks.

Region
Number of immigrants unemployed on 7th February, 1961
Total adult unemployed on 13th February, 1961
Immigrants as a percentage of total register


London and South Eastern
…
7,800
57,671
13·5


Midland
…
3,436
39,079
8·8


North Western
…
783
48,241
1·6


East and West Ridings
…
582
18,961
3·1


North Midland
…
483
19,422
2·5


Eastern and Southern
…
483
36,145
1·3

Mr. Driberg: Will the Minister confirm that the total number of immigrants, coloured or otherwise, is infinitesimal in relation to the population of this country, and ought not any civilised nation of 55 million people to be able easily to absorb about 300,000 people? Is he aware of the infinite damage done in the Commonwealth by the racialist prejudices of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne)?

Mr. Hare: I could not more strongly deny what the hon. Member has said. There is no racialist prejudice here. All thinking people realise that there is a problem. It must be looked at fairly and without prejudice, and that is what the Government are doing.

Mr. Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) dragged my name into his supplementary question, almost indicating that I share his racial views, may I say that I do not, and that I regard them as obnoxious?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Sir G. Nicholson: Did my right hon. Friend intend to convey—if he did, I think it unfortunate—that the stress should be on colour? It is a non-racial Commonwealth. The problem is not one of coloured immigrants. It is a problem of immigrants.

Mr. Hare: I hope that I did not give that impression. In answer to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I denied that my right hon. and hon. Friends were motivated by colour prejudice in any way.

Following are the figures:

Maternity Protection (I.L.O. Convention)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour when it is his intention to ratify Convention No. 103 of the International Labour Organisation concerning maternity protection.

Mr. Hare: The position remains as stated in Cmd. 9082 presented to the House in March, 1954, and the Government do not propose to ratify this Convention.

Dame Irene Ward: I agree that, fundamentally, these matters are better settled between employer and employee, on a voluntary basis, but what does my right hon. Friend suggest can be done when the employer and the employed fail, perhaps, to carry out what are, I think, the accepted arrangements when there are maternity cases involved in employment? In view of his hon. Friend's agreement in answer to another question to look at any problems where people are not getting on very well in industry, will he consider cases of this kind?

Mr. Hare: I agree that this is primarily a matter best settled between the employer and worker. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this Convention does not guarantee an expectant woman against dismissal. It is a very difficult problem which in the ordinary way can be settled properly only by good sense in the relationship between employer and employee.

Mrs. Castle: As there are employers, including, unfortunately, the Press Association, who are still following the barbaric practice of dismissing married women employees who have been with them for 15 years simply because they have become pregnant, does not the Minister think that the time has come for us to follow the example of France and to give protection to the right of reinstatement of married women by law as is done in that country?

Mr. Hare: I think that that would be very difficult. I understand the hon. Lady's feeling about this, but, once we start legislating, we are in danger of prejudicing the position of married women and of putting them under restraints which would make life more difficult for them than it is at the moment.

SHIP-REPAIRING DISPUTE, LIVERPOOL

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. LEE: To ask the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement on the Liverpool ship-repairing dispute.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order. In view of the importance of Question No. 41, and as we have heard today that this strike may well spread to many thousands of other people in Liverpool, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour could be allowed to make a statement on it?

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister asks leave to answer the Question, I will deal with the matter, but I have not received any such request.

Mr. Hare: I am perfectly willing, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question.
Representatives of the District Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions met the Employers' Association on 27th April, but failed to reach agreement. The District Committee met yesterday and recommended its affiliated unions to withdraw all labour from Merseyside ship-repairing yards after Friday. My regional industrial relations officer is endeavouring to arrange an early joint meeting under his chairmanship.

Mr. Lee: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement. In view of the very serious turn which has taken place, and as this strike has gone on for 14 weeks, will the Minister now consider referring it to the executive councils of the unions concerned, so that we may hope for arbitration at a very early date?

Mr. Hare: I am in some difficulty with this matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, if possible, the best thing would be to arrange a joint meeting. If that is not successful, then I will certainly consider other methods of dealing with the situation.

Mr. Logan: As the senior Member of Parliament for Liverpool, may I say that I am not at all satisfied with the manner in which the question of unemployment


in Liverpool has been dealt with. We have had men out on strike for 16 weeks. If it takes 16 weeks to negotiate with able administrators of the House of Commons, I do not know how long it would take the ordinary individual to reach conciliation in this matter. In view of the loss of £800,000 to the dock-workers of Liverpool, and since the employers would not negotiate or see the men, may I ask what steps the Ministry of Labour proposes to take to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion?
In view of the danger that the men at the dockside faced during the war, risking their lives, when many of them were injured and killed, do the shipowners of Liverpool think that an appropriate reward to the workers is to keep them out of work for 16 weeks and to let their families want? I do not think that they are aware of their moral obligations. I have represented the people of Liverpool for thirty-one-and-a-half years. Is it not time that something was done for these men? I want to know—[Laughter.] I am pleased to see hon. Members on the Government benches smiling, for whenever I meet them in the Lobby they have the most ugly faces. [Laughter.] It is pleasant to have a small diversion in the life of the House of Commons at times. When the Shipping Federation asks for a subsidy for a new liner for Liverpool, will the right hon. Gentleman say to the Government that it should not get it until it makes good the wages which have been lost by the men who have been out of employment?

Mr. Hare: I think that the whole House is aware of the passionate feeling which the hon. Gentleman has for the people of Merseyside, and for Liverpool in particular. I am grateful to him for his suggestions. I will certainly do all I can to help in this matter.

Orders of the Day — REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st May].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(OPERATION OF EXISTING LAW IN RELATION TO SOUTH AFRICA.)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the first "law" to insert:
other than the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, and the Visiting Forces Act, 1952".
I am glad to see that, as the result of pressure which some of us put on the Government at a late hour on Monday, they decided that it was better that we should continue discussion on this Bill today. As a result, we now have the pleasure of the presence of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who, apparently, was otherwise engaged on the last occasion. I do not complain about that; I merely say that it is nice to have him with us today.
There is a number, although not very many, of South African Army and, I think, Air Force personnel training in this country. They come under the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. We are told that they are training for a number of different tasks, but principally as parachutists. In answer to a Question on 30th March, 1960, the Secretary of State for Air said:
About 30 officers and 60 airmen of the South African Air Force have received training in Royal Air Force establishments during the past five years. None is receiving training at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c.142.]
We were told by the Secretary of State for War, on 9th November last year, that
During the past year seven South African officers and three other ranks have attended Army courses in the United Kingdom and British Army of the Rhine, in addition to those who are being trained at the Royal Air Force Parachute School…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c.56.]
Those men are being trained for some purpose and it is interesting to consider what that purpose might be. It might be for the assistance which South


Africans would give in the event of a global war. It is understandable that they might give assistance in that way, but apparently that is not the case, because Mr. Erasmus, the former South African Minister of Defence, said in Pretoria, on 2nd December:
The most important thing remaining for the South African defence force in the foreseeable future is to guard against subversive activities and terrorism of the kind that has arisen in Algeria…
That means that these men are being trained for that purpose and if any confirmation of that is needed, it was given by Mr. Fouche, the present South African Minister of Defence, who said:
In the past, when the rôle of the South African forces was mainly to give support to South Africa's allies…
certain conditions and considerations prevailed. Today, apparently, the situation is different and that is not the main rôle of the South African forces. Their main rôle is assisting the police in keeping law and order in South Africa.
It is not right that these men should be trained in this country and should be given the protection of the Visiting Forecs Act if they are to be engaged in activities of that kind when they return and if the training which they get here is to be used for that purpose.
We therefore feel that the Bill should be amended so that the Visiting Forces Act does not apply to South Africa. We hope that the Minister will explain to us a little more how many South African forces are training here, what they are doing, what protection is given to them, and whether he will consider not applying that Act to them. This is a perfectly simple Amendment and would cause the right hon. Gentleman no difficulty and it could be done without the Commonwealth Relations Office having to undergo all the travail and trouble of pursuing facts about South Africa which it ought to have known before, but which it did not know, as we discovered the other night. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what he can do to help in this very difficult situation.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): It might be helpful to the Committee if I say something about the

two Acts which the Amendment mentions. The first is the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, and the second is the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. The purpose of the first is to apply British Service discipline to indidividual members of Commonwealth forces serving with British Services, or with British Service establishments. At present, there are only 33 members of South African forces here on training courses, or for other purposes, and it is desirable that British military codes of discipline should continue to apply to them.
Earlier in our discussions, reference was made to paratroopers training here. There are no South African paratroopers now under training in this country and we have not made arrangements to take any more. The Act also makes useful provision for dealing with powers of command and discipline when Commonwealth units are serving together at sea, for instance.
The Visiting Forces Act, 1952, repealed some parts of the 1933 Act, but purposely left the provisions to which I have just referred. That Act deals with the problem of forces, as opposed to individuals, when visiting this country. It is not affected by the Bill, because, like the British Nationality Act, it mentions Commonwealth countries by name and not by reference to membership of the Commonwealth. It also refers to foreign countries, if designated for that purpose by Order in Council.
As the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) reminded the Committee, we have defence arrangements with South Africa which we entered because they were mutually advantageous to us, and to our allies in N.A.T.O. Those arrangements, like all other arrangements which we have made with South Africa, will have to be reviewed, always bearing in mind the need to safeguard central British interests. I can say that that review has already begun.
My right hon. Friend is fully seized of the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but to withdraw the application of the 1933 code would be to prejudge the result of the review upon which we are now engaged, which would not be advisable in this case any more than in


all the other matters, of which many are contentious. They will have to be reviewed and are, therefore, covered by the Bill. For those reasons, I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: We have recently had a series of speeches from Ministers of the Union of South Africa, warning of the danger and difficulties in South Africa and insisting upon the strengthening of military forces to deal with internal problems within South Africa, or, as one Minister put it, problems which might arise from invasions such as that which has taken place from the Congo into Angola.
If difficulties of that kind arise, there will be conflicts between the Government and the African population of the Union, or with African supporters from outside the territory. I would like an assurance that during the year of standstill any treaty which we have with the Union will not be used to strengthen the forces of the Union in any internal struggle with the African people.
I appreciate that my second point is more difficult and that, in some senses, I shall be speaking for myself rather than for the whole of my party. We are in a dilemma in the whole problem of defence in the Continent of Africa. The Under-Secretary said that our military arrangements with the Union Government were of mutual benefit and of value to N.A.T.O. But we must balance any military advantages against the reluctance of the African people of those territories to be involved in military commitments of that kind. The sweep of opinion in the Continent of Africa is towards neutralism and to be free from N.A.T.O. and from Western commitments.
We must be careful, even in the case of the Union of South Africa, to judge between the advantage of any military arrangements there and the degree of resistance which those arrangements will arouse in the majority of the population in South Africa, which is now disfranchised, but which is fundamentally opposed, as are other African peoples, to being committed to military arrangements which may be of value to us and to N.A.T.O., but against the tide of opinion in Africa.
To the Secretary of State, now on the Front Bench, to whom I would say a word of welcome back from his mission to Sierra Leone, I say that we must be very careful indeed, in any defence arrangements which are made with the Union of South Africa, to ensure that they do not have the effect opposite to that intended and actually weaken our position.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: There must be very few hon. Members in the Committee, though I see one or two faces dotted about in one place or another, who were here in this Chamber and actually spoke when the original Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act—Bill, as it then was—was discussed here in 1933. I was one of those, and I remember the feelings which were expressed then about the proposal that some special treatment should be afforded to visiting forces from the Commonwealth. The whole atmosphere then was that the Commonwealth was at that time acting and was likely to act in the foreseeable future with one mind in dealing with its military forces, and for that reason special provisions, privileges—call them what you will—were introduced and were generally acceptable.
It is a very different situation today with regard to South Africa. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) how the purposes for which the South African forces are likely to be used have been stated by Ministers in South Africa. I suppose that nobody would think that this Committee would approve of giving support to the forces of South Africa which were to be used primarily, if not entirely, for the purposes stated by those South African Ministers. That brings into effect now a situation totally different from the situation which was ruling at the time when the original Bill was introduced.
I appreciate the point which was made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that these two Acts, the 1933 Act and the 1952 Act, are in different classes in that the former one would be affected by the Bill whereas the second would not, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman, who may be replying finally upon this matter, that it is exceedingly important that we should do nothing at all in this Committee which would seek


to give support to the policies which are being carried out in South Africa by the South African Nationalist Government.
Since the hon. Gentleman is right that the 1952 Act is not within the purview of the Bill, I submit to the Minister that he should consider taking the first Act out of the purview of the Bill, because I am sure that he will agree that it is important that we should do right in this matter—that we should do it demonstrably, and that the whole of Africa should see that we are determined to take every step we can to dissociate ourselves, in a perfectly friendly manner, from the policies of apartheid which are being carried out by the Nationalist Government of South Africa.

Mr. John Stonehouse: In a few words I, too, support what has been said from this side of the Committee. I do not think that public opinion in this country would take very kindly to any facilities being provided by the United Kingdom to the Armed Forces of the Union of South Africa in any way, particularly in view of the fact that Ministers have made clear in the Union during the past few weeks that their forces are to be used mainly for internal order, which is tantamount to saying that they intend to use military might to the full to suppress the three-quarters of the population which is opposed to apartheid.
The opinion of the British public on this issue—and this concerns both sides of this Committee, in which, upon this, there is no division—is very strong indeed, and we want a clear assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be no question of any assistance being given to South African defence forces in these circumstances.
There is a further question which I should like to have clarified, and it refers to the position of the High Commission Territories and the defence arrangements with the Union. Are we to understand that the review, which the Joint Undersecretary of State has already told us will be carried out, includes a review of the radar and other defence arrangements in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland?
I ask the Minister specifically whether we shall make clear to the Union authorities

that no transit facilities across Bechuanaland will be allow to Union troops travelling to the mandated area of the South-West where the Union authorities, in defiance of the United Nations, are carrying out the policies of apartheid. I am sure both sides of the Committee condemn the activities in which they are engaged. They do use facilities through Bechuanaland to move their troops into that mandated territory. I hope that when he replies to this short debate the Secretary of State will make it quite clear that those facilities will no longer be allowed.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I want, first, to clear up with the Government the point raised by the Joint Under-Secretary of State and raised again by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). That is the question of the 1952 Act. The Under-Secretary of State said that the 1952 Act did not come into the purview of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman keeps saying to us that sort of thing about this, that or the other Act, and it seems to me that he is in a complete muddle about the application of the Bill. We felt this during the earlier proceedings of the Committee on the Bill, when we got no satisfaction whatever from him about the Nationality Acts. We hope that now, since he has been reinforced by his right hon. Friend, we can get at least this matter clear, because it is important as a matter of order, apart from any other considerations.
This Clause says quite plainly that
all existing law which operates as law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom shall, unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having power to alter that law, have the same operation in relation to the Republic of South Africa…as it would have had…if the Union had not become a Republic and had continued to be a member of the Commonwealth.
That means that the Bill applies to all law of the United Kingdom Parliament which deals with the relationships between this country and the Union of South Africa, so we are perfectly entitled to raise these matters and discuss them thoroughly. I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to draw a distinction between those Acts of the United Kingdom which would automatically lapse if the Bill were not passed and other Acts,


but all those Acts come within the purview of the Bill and we are fully entitled to ask questions about them.
4.0 p.m.
I hope that the Secretary of State will go a great deal further than did the Under-Secretary, to whom we are grateful for giving hon. Members some of the factual background material to this Act, but that explanation did not take into account the reason for our tabling this Amendment. The main reason for our tabling it is to obtain from the Government assurances concerning their behaviour on defence arrangements between this country and the Union of South Africa during the standstill period. We received no such assurances from the Under-Secretary, and thus we are seeking them from the Secretary of State.
Some of the points on which we are seeking clarification have already been made by my hon. Friends. The Undersecretary has stated that there are no paratroopers from South Africa at present receiving training in Britain, but, he told us, there were 33 South African Service men here. Can the Secretary of State give a clearer indication of how these 33 Service men are being employed, so that we can make up our minds whether their employment involves the kind of help that we should or should not be giving? My hon. Friends and I draw a sharp distinction between the kind of defence co-operation which is right for the time being, and the type of co-operation that would be considered to be normal between the two countries and in our joint interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Brockway) expressed his own view on this subject, and I agree with him that when the final form of government in South Africa becomes more democratic, we shall have to discuss with the Union Government, in the light of their policies, what defence arrangements can be arrived at between our two countries. It may be that a Union Government of the future may have a neutralist policy. If that happens, we will have to respect their view and operate from the standpoint that neutralist countries in Africa and Asia have an important rôle to play in preserving the peace of the world. In the meantime, we are entitled to know what

defence arrangements will be made with the Government of the Union of South Africa.
We are equally entitled to know, and to be assured, that, whatever form of defence co-operation takes place, that co-operation will not lead to Britain helping the Union Government to forward their own police policies. We require a firm assurance from the Government that during the standstill period—however long it may last—there will be no training offered in this country to any South African forces that would result in that training being used for internal policies of apartheid being imposed by military force.
We also require assurances that during this period of standstill no military supplies will be provided to South Africa if there is the slightest chance of those supplies being used for similar military purposes. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I question the Government on this specific point. I asked them to make sure that in the event of violence breaking out during this standstill period, it could not possibly be said that British military supplies were being used by the South African Government to enforce their policies by means of military power.
A further point arises, and this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). We want a firm assurance that the British Government will not, during the standstill period, offer transit facilities to South African forces through the High Commission Territories to reach the mandated territory of South-West Africa. In this connection, I must draw the Government's attention to what seems to be an astonishing Section of the 1933 Act. The Section may have been understandable at the time the Act was passed, but in present-day circumstances it requires attention by the Government.
I refer to Section 6, in which paragraph (a) says that visiting forces under the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, shall apply
in relation to any territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations is being exercised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as if that territory were for the time being a colony;
The implication of that provision is very serious in relation to the whole position of South-West Africa at the present time. Hon. Members on both sides of the


Committee hold the view that South-West Africa is a United Nations mandated territory, that the Union of South Africa is in breach of its mandate there, and that the Union has annexed the territory in defiance of the request of the United Nations.
My hon. Friends and I have over a long period been seeking that the British Government should take a more active rôle in the United Nations to ensure that South Africa's annexation of South-West Africa should not be recognised. Yet we find in the Act of 1933, in respect of defence arrangements, a statutory provision that Her Majesty's Government shall treat South-West Africa as though it were part of the territory of the Union of South Africa. In view of that, we want Her Majesty's Government's comments on that Section of the 1933 Act. If the Government say that it is impossible to amend the present Bill to give the assurances we require, they must make it clear that, during the standstill period, there will be no transit facilities offered to the Union of South Africa to use military force in the mandated territory of South West Africa in support of the Union Government's policy of apartheid.
I must make it clear that, on this point, we require from the Government more than just a legalistic explanation of the position. We want details of the Government's proposals. My hon. Friends and I accept, in all these Amendments, the position adopted by the Secretary of State in his speech during the Second Reading of the Bill—the position that South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth cannot mean that relationships will remain as they were previously, or that it will appear that South Africa is still a member.
My hon. Friends and I fear that the period of negotiation may be misunderstood in other parts of the Commonwealth, and by non-Commonwealth countries, to mean that there is not to be a definite change in our relationship with South Africa. It is important not only that the Government should make a change, but that they should show, openly, that a change is being made. During this period of negotiation, the issues of defence should receive special attention, and the least the Government can do in the circumstances

is to give the assurances that we are seeking.
On one issue, we are adamant, that during the standstill period the British Government will not provide the kind of defence co-operation that might lead to the military imposition of the policies of apartheid.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) referred to my absence on Monday night. I was, in fact in an aeroplane somewhere over the Sahara—and that accounts for my absence from the House. I am glad, however, to have this opportunity of taking part in the resumed debate on the Bill.
Various hon. Members have raised a number of points and I will try to deal with them as best I can. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) raised the question of the application of the Bill to the 1952 Act, and complained that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was "muddle-minded" about this matter. I can assure hon. Members that the Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly correct in what he said. The Bill does not affect the application of the 1952 Act. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) wish to intervene?

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I thank the Minister for giving the explanation he gave about his absence, which is perfectly acceptable.
We were interested to find how many important Acts were not affected by the Bill. That seems to throw some light on the lack of necessity for having a twelvemonths standstill period.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present during my speech on Second Reading. I then gave a list of a considerable number of Acts which were affected and which would cease to have effect on 31st May in respect of South Africa if the Bill were not passed. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this, but I made it clear that the Bill is a fairly pedestrian affair and does not deal with some of the main issues of policy which interested hon. Members. They have been very ingenious in managing to speak on these


matters, but they are not directly connected with the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that Acts applying to South Africa which would cease to apply on 31st May will continue to apply for a period of one year while we are considering the issues involved. Any Act which refers to South Africa by name, and which applies to South Africa by reason of the fact that South Africa is mentioned in it by name, will not cease to have effect because South Africa becomes a Republic, or leaves the Commonwealth. Those Acts, therefore, will continue in force after 31st May unless some action is taken by the House of Commons to repeal or amend them.
Matters covered by these Acts and other Measures will be within the scope of our general review of policy in relation to South Africa, but no legislation is needed at this stage. At the end of the standstill period, which is more likely to be less than a year, the Government will introduce legislation which will cover not only the matters with which this Bill is concerned, but all matters where a change in the law is desirable. At the moment, we are concerned only with holding the position in respect of those Acts of Parliament which will cease to have effect if we do not take this action at the moment.

Mr. Brockway: Our difficulty is that in his speech on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman gave a list of Acts which would be affected by the Bill. We then took the view that they were pedestrian, but we have found in the course of discussion that a considerable number of other Acts are affected. We find now that one of the defence Acts comes under the Bill. We find that the Fugitive Offenders Act comes under it and that statutory powers for arrangements for Imperial Preference come under it. When we find that the Bill covers all these matters we find that it goes very much wider than the pedestrian steps which the right hon. Gentleman took.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that any great issues of policy arise. I hope that I shall be forgiven by the Chair if I try to elucidate the position. This might be helpful. We could have tried in these few weeks to make up our minds about all the numerous issues raised by these various Acts and have tried to

rush through some legislation, but I do not think that we could have done a very satisfactory job. Consultations are involved with South Africa on reciprocal rights and relations, and we would have had to have consultations with a great many territories which are affected. As a practical step, it would not have been sensible to try to rush things through.
Another method would have been to pick and choose. To say, "This we want to change. We will settle on that and this and leave the others for discussion." I think that that would have been an untidy arrangement. We took the view that we should have a blanket arrangement which would ensure a standstill on all legislation affecting South Africa while we had a look at the whole picture and then presented to Parliament a Bill incorporating all the changes that seemed necessary. Whatever the view taken about the issues involved, the Amendment now before the Committee would mean picking out this or that item.

Mr. Stonehouse: rose—

Mr. Sandys: I think that we ought to get on, but if it is an important point I will give way.
4.15 p.m.
The question of transit through High Commission Territories is obviously not affected at the moment. There is no firm commitment of any kind, but we are interested in transit through South African territory just as the South Africans are interested in transit through ours. There are no radar instruments in the High Commission Territories and, therefore, that point does not arise.
I quite understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) about feelings on the question of Africa and defence agreements, but I think that there is a realisation awakening in Africa that some of these arrangements are perhaps to the advantage not only of countries outside Africa, but of countries in Africa itself. It is in the nature of things that the fact that there are defence agreements discourages other countries from interfering or threatening to interfere in African affairs.
The defence agreements comprise one of the relationships with South Africa which will be included within the scope


of the review, but it would be very difficult to come to any conclusions about that in a hurry. All our defensive arrangements with South Africa are of mutual benefit. They are of benefit to us as well as to South Africa, and to South Africa as well as to us, and I doubt whether we will want to brush all these things lightly aside.
There is no police training going on in this country for the South African police. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said that few hon. Members were present in 1933 when the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act was passed. I thought that the hon. and learned Member was about to refer to 1909 when the South Africa Act was passed. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who introduced that into the House.
The purpose of the Visiting Forces Act is to apply British Service discipline to individual members of Commonwealth forces serving with British forces or in British Service establishments in this country. As long as there are these people serving with or attached to our military establishments here, it is very much in our interests that they should be under a proper code of military discipline. As has been said, there are about 33 members of the South African forces here on training courses and it is desirable that they should be under the same discipline as others have been hitherto.
I have dealt as far as I could with most of the points raised, but all these matters will be included in the review which we are undertaking and we do not think that it would be right or sensible to try to prejudge aspects of that review in advance.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: On this side of the Committee, we have recognised, in respect of trade, that an agreement fairly negotiated between two parties to their mutual advantage would not be one to which we would object. Our attitude on defence matters is precisely the same. We readily concede that a defence agreement entered into with the Union of South Africa after it has become an independent country, provided that this is

clearly to our advantage as well as to South Africa's and is well and thoroughly negotiated with an eye to the advantage to this country and without regard to internal circumstances in South Africa, might be necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) said when introducing the Amendment, we can just conceive circumstances of what he called a global war in which wider and more general interests than those of racial segregation might have to prevail.
Having said that, I am still very disappointed that the Minister did not go further to meet the point of view which we have expressed. The subject has been debated very moderately and quietly with no extravagant or absurd suggestions. When we have questioned them in the past about various occurrences in South Africa, the Government have frequently said that certain matters are the internal affair of South Africa. In defence matters we do not want to be mixed up in internal affairs in South Africa.
Unhappily, we cannot prevent the South African Government from repressing their own population if they wish to do so, but we can make a definite and clear statement that we shall not help to do that in any way. We are bound to raise the question when we realise that in the acts of repression which were deplored on both sides of the House, which took place at Sharpeville and Langa, military equipment manufactured in this country was used.
We blame nobody for that, because it had been supplied before any threat of that kind was apparent, but surely it is reasonable and sensible, now that we know the situation in South Africa and that such incidents of civil war—because they are no less than that—may take place, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that there will be non-intervention on our part. Non-intervention is a phrase with rather unhappy associations, but why should it not be used in this case?
We are bound to refer to these matters not merely because they occurred at the time of Sharpeville and Langa, but because there are reports in South African newspapers about new developments. Referring to the new Defence


Bill which was introduced there, the Johannesburg Star of 25th February said:
It facilitates the swift call-up of the defence forces either for war or, what is the obvious intention, the prevention or suppression of internal disorder.
That was in a South African newspaper. We all knew clearly that the purpose of the new Defence Act was suppression. We know that trouble has been going on in Pondoland. The people of Transkei have passed a resolution in their council demanding independence. That might well lead to civil war in Transkei.
We have the possibility of this within the period of a year, and we are asking that no fresh British equipment should be sent in that period and no assistance given to South African troops who may be engaged in civil war in Transkei or Pondoland or elsewhere by training people in this country. That is all that we are asking.
We are certainly not asking—at any rate, that was not my purpose in putting my name to the Amendment—that no defence agreement should be negotiated. As we said many times during the earlier stages of the Bill, we want negotiations. All we ask for is a more forthcoming statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to see that the fears which have been expressed on this side of the Committee are completely met. Let him say, "You need have no fears of this kind. It is not our intention in any way to support South Africa in repressive activities. We realise that the whole of the British people would dislike that intensely. We ourselves dislike it very much and we have no intention whatever of helping them". Cannot we have such an assurance? The one word "Yes" would do to that kind of approach to the problem.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that no more paratroopers are coming to this country, which is a very important assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "shall" to "have" in line 13.
The Amendment proposes to leave out the following words:

unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having power to alter that law".
I want to ask my right hon. Friend some questions about this somewhat unusual form of words. Subsection (1) provides, as we discussed on the last Amendment, for a standstill on all existing United Kingdom law. It goes on to say that there shall be this standstill unless some "authority having power to alter that law" provides otherwise.
In United Kingdom law I have found no authority and no precedent for this form of words, which is highly unusual. After all, we pass a law in the House and often we repeal a law, and Ministers introduce Amendments or Motions for repeal, but the authority is with Parliament. In this case, we are not saying that Parliament shall change the law, but that it shall be done by some authority having this power "to alter that law". We should not leave this part of the Bill without clear assurance that there is nothing in this form of words which in any way diminishes the responsibility or authority of Parliament.
There have been two precedents for this very unhappy tragedy of South Africa's forced withdrawal from the Commonwealth. The first is the Burma Independence Act, 1947. In that Act we dealt with preferences, which are very different from statute law, and there was a provision that the Act should be amended in due course by an Order in Council. In that Act we made specific provision that Parliament would have the power to pray against such an Order in Council. In that Act, which dealt not with statute law, as does this Bill, but with preferences, Parliament's position was preserved.
The nearest analogy to this form of words is to be found in the Ireland Act, 1949. There, a form of words not unlike this is used to deal not with a problem of United Kingdom law, with which we are dealing in subsection (1), but with the law in Colonies, Protectorates or Trust Territories, such as we are dealing with in subsection (3). But in that case we have not quite this form of words, because in Section 3 (2) of the Ireland Act, 1949, the words were "until"—not "unless"—
provision to the contrary is made by Parliament or by some other authority having power in that behalf.


That was a provision dealing, first, not with United Kingdom law as we deal with it here; not with the countermanding of Parliament's authority, as we are here; but with subordinate territories, putting a time limit on the effect of that Ireland Act, 1949, if that subordinate territory wished later to make a change.
4.30 p.m.
The effect of these words must be directed not to subsection (1) of this Bill, but to subsection (3), which deals with the subordinate territories. If I am wrong, this part of what I am saying is beyond the point, but I think that it must have that effect. If that is so, there are two problems here. There is the problem of a territory which has a Constitution, which does not require the authority of Parliament to change that part of the Constitution. If that is so, surely it is far better for us not to deal with that in the Bill, but if, by its Constitution, it has the force of authority to act without the necessity for Parliament, it is quite clearly outside the Bill.
If, on the other hand, it is a territory that requires the assent of an Act of Parliament to any decision which it takes, then I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that that ought to come back to Parliament before that territory counter-orders a standstill Order which Parliament is making. If I am right in this hazard that this Bill does not mean what it says, as drafted, these words
unless provision to the contrary
have got out of their context and ought not to be in subsection (1), but ought to be in subsection (3).
I suggest that both require drafting amendment before they are passed. Further, the word ought not to be "unless", but "until", as in the case of the Northern Ireland Act. I have some doubts myself whether we in Parliament, in a matter like this, should hand over our authority, with which we are empowered, completely.
When the Minister is replying, I should like him to try to explain how he envisages this Clause to work. I have a feeling that it would be much better that it should be given a calm and dispassionate period of thirteen months during which both sides, with the best will in the world, should try to make the

most harmonious end to this unhappy tragedy. After all, the people who are affected by this Measure, as my right hon. Friend mentioned in the Second Reading debate, are people for whom all of us on both sides of this Committee have a great affection. They are men whose whole personal lives will be adrift until these problems are finally settled, and if they are not settled their lives will be jeopardised. They are the doctors, the dentists and all other professional men—the key men—and they are the very men who so dislike apartheid.
We want this calm and dispassionate approach to the problem, and I think that it would be very unfortunate if words such as these which I am seeking to delete proved to be one of the ways in which these professional men felt that, under the authority of Parliament, they were being treated in different parts of the country differently at different times.
For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider these words very carefully. This is a Bill of constitutional importance, and it appears to me that many people who read this phrase which I have read out will misunderstand its purpose. It may well be that in some parts of my interpretaion of it I myself have misunderstood it. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully this form of words, and that, if he finds some of the implications which I have mentioned, will withdraw the phrase or alter it at a later stage.

Mr. Sandys: I am interested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) should have had his attention drawn to this phrase in the Bill, because when I first read the Bill, as drafted, I, also, was a little uncertain about this phrase; and I did not allow it to go into the Bill until I was fully satisfied that it was necessary and proper.
My right hon. Friend has asked for an assurance that these words do not involve any derogation of the authority or status of Parliament. That was just the point about which I was concerned. I can assure my right hon. Friend that that is, in fact, so; I give him the assurance for which he asks, and I will explain why. He said that this is a somewhat unusual form of words, and that there


was no precedent for them. Though he seems to have done a certain amount of research on the subject, he did not go so far as to look at the Acts passed on India, Pakistan and Ghana becoming Republics. All these Acts contained precisely this phrase, and for reasons which I will explain.
This Bill applies to all laws, Orders in Council, Regulations and other law-making instruments of the United Kingdom and all British Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories. This phrase is mainly concerned, as my right hon. Friend himself recognised, not with laws which have effect here in this country primarily, but with laws which have effect in overseas territories. In the case of laws, as distinct from Orders in Council Regulations, and so forth, the authority referred to in the words proposed to be left out would normally be the legislature or other law-making authority of the dependent territory concerned. In the case of Orders in Council or other instruments, the authority would be the Queen in Council, or a Governor in Council, as the case may be, or any authority empowered to make Orders and Regulations.
The words which it is proposed to leave out have been inserted to allow dependent territories to modify the provisions of the Bill in respect of laws—and this is the point I want to emphasise—which are within their own legislative competence. Considering that some of these territories have reached an advanced stage of self-government, we think that it is constitutionally right and proper to leave them this discretion.
That is the explanation which I can give to my right hon. Friend, and I hope that with that assurance he will be content not to press the Amendment.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: There is one outstanding point which I should like to raise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked whether, assuming that this provision is appropriate at all, it is appropriately placed in subsection (1), which deals with existing law which operates in any part of the United Kingdom. Subsection (3) applies to the Colonies and Protectorates, but, of course, according to the ordinary canons of construction, if this provision is in subsection (1) we have to find some

application for it within the actual ambit of that subsection; that is to say, so far as it relates to the law of the United Kingdom.
If there is no application as far as it relates to the law of the United Kingdom as distinct from the Colonies—and that is what I apprehend my right hon. Friend's answer to mean—it would seem that in subsection (1) there is no effect of these words and the phrase should not be placed in subsection (1).
I know that these matters are a little technical. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton would not wish to press our right hon. Friend to give a definitive answer to this point now from the point of view of the drafting and whether the phrase is correctly placed in that subsection. However, in the light of what has been said and of the expert advice that he is in a position to obtain, perhaps he could consider that.

Mr. Sandys: Even if my right hon. Friend does not press me, I should like to give an answer now. What I said earlier was that, in the main, I do not say it is absolutely 100 per cent., this phrase will, in practice, apply only to laws of independent territories. I do not think that there is any derogation of the authority of Parliament in doing what we have done in the Bill. It is what we do in regard to the United Kingdom. When Parliament passes a law which gives a power to some other authority—possibly to the Queen in Council or to the Minister by Regulation—to bring the application of that Act in part or in whole to an end or to modify it in any way. There is no reason why we should then seek to take away from the Queen in Council, for example, the powers to amend the Act which were given by Parliament after due consideration.
This is the effect. We are leaving as far as possible intact the Act as passed by Parliament. If Parliament thought it right to leave that discretion to some other law-making authority, whether the Queen in Council or to some colonial authority, we see no particular reason why we should in this Measure alter that provision.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I feel a great deal of sympathy for what has been said by the right hon. Member for Thirk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the right hon.


and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). The answer which the Secretary of State has given was, I believe, intended to satisfy them, but I wonder whether it really satisfies them on the question of derogation from the rights of Parliament.
The Secretary of State explained that if Parliament has given power to an inferior authority to Parliament to legislate in a given case there is no reason why the same authority should not be allowed to amend its legislation at a subsequent date. But surely that is not the point. The point is that we are legislating in this Bill. It is the Bill which causes a standstill to come into operation which would be effected by the subservient authority if it were permitted to amend legislation at a later stage.

Mr. Sandys: If we did what the hon. and learned Member has suggested we would not be producing a standstill. The standstill does not mean that everything has to go on for a year. It means that everything will be exactly the same as if South Africa had not left the Commonwealth. If an Act which exists today provides that an authority outside Parliament has power to amend that Act, then the standstill should leave the position as it is, namely, leave that power to amend. Otherwise, it would not be a standstill, but an amendment of the Act. It would retain the Act in force in a different form. I think that when the hon. and learned Member considers that further he will see that it is a sound argument.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: Could my right hon. Friend explain how an Order in Council could be amended without coming to Parliament?

Mr. Sandys: There are all sorts of powers, as my right hon. Friend knows, given by Parliament for action to be taken by Order in Council or Regulations in regard to many matters. Whether the Order has to be laid on the Table does not affect this Bill as we have it before Parliament today. We do not say, in the Bill, that if there is the provision that such an Order must be laid on the Table of the House that is amended. All we are doing is to keep everything as it is today with such powers of amendment as exist today for a period of a year.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: What my right hon. Friend is saying is that if there is an Order in Council or Statutory Instrument subject to a defined degree of Parliamentary procedure that defined degree of Parliamentary procedure will still operate no more and no less in accordance with his interpretation of the meaning of the subsection?

Mr. Sandys: Certainly.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I hope that I am not being unduly obtuse, but surely the Bill provides a standstill, in certain instances, on laws brought into operation by authorities subservient to this House. If those subservient authorities are allowed to alter their laws after we have said that there will be a standstill it is a derogation from the powers of this House.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that we want to pursue this matter very much. I tried to make it clear. We are no longer saying that no law in South Africa shall be changed for a year, but that those laws shall not cease automatically to have effect by reason of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. I do not know that there is one, but suppose there were a law which said that until 1st September, 1961, South African citizens should have certain rights. This Bill would not extend the application of that Act for another nine months after that. That Act would come to an end on 1st September, 1961, as already provided. This is not a standstill in the sense that we are rigidly extending everything for one year.
What we are doing is to see that laws do not automatically cease to have effect by reason of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth on 31st May. I hope that hon. Members will consider this, but perhaps we need not discuss it further now.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: The Secretary of State may be right in saying that we have pursued this matter long enough, but I am not satisfied that we are very near to the quarry. For all I know, the legal gentlemen of the Privy Council, or the legal gentlemen who have had such long experience—longer than the rest of us—of this particular subject for legislation may understand it, but with every respect to the rest of my colleagues present, I should make a


heavy bet against every one of them understanding it. I do not believe that this matter has been understood. I believe it to be the duty of Ministers to make sure that it is understood before they ask us to leave it.
No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right about his precedents, but, again with respect to the draftsmen, for all I know to the contrary, this form of words:
unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having power to alter that law,"—
that is to say, a provision in the passive and a negative provision—may be inevitable, but ordinary hon. Members should always be suspicious of provisos in that sort of form. We have been given ample reason for supposing that competent lawyers may find the proviso unintelligible. It seems that from the point of view of the Committee in general this is an unintelligible proviso. I think that my right hon. Friend ought to give us some assurance that this will be fully considered. I think, quite honestly, that we ought to have present on the Report stage a Law Officer whom we can cross-examine on this point.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee on this, but, like the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), I now find the matter much more incomprehensible than I had judged it to be before the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) moved his Amendment.
The Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, is full of provisions for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, doing a wide variety of things, such as giving exemptions from impositions under the Naval Discipline Act and the Army Act, and making arrangements for the relationships of visiting forces to the civil power and for the relationship of the Act to the Colonies. Is it possible, under the provisions of this Bill, for changes to be made in the operation of that Act—which is relevant to our discussions—without coming before the House of Commons? I would like an assurance about that.
Another point mentioned by the Secretary of State puzzled me. He said that if enactments relating to Britain and South Africa expired during the next twelve months, their date of expiry

would not be affected by the Bill. Reading the Bill in one way, that seems to be so, but reading it in another way, it seems that all existing law is extended for one year from 31st May, 1961. We need legal clarification on that point.

Mrs. Castle: May I add to the general confusion by asking the Secretary of State how his explanation of this sentence in subsection (1) fits in with the exceptions listed in subsection (3)? I understand that dependent territories have provisions in their own laws affecting their relationships with South Africa, and that it is within their competence to amend those provisions. The purpose of this sentence in subsection (1), to which attention has been drawn, is to continue to reserve to them that competence, but would not that be invalidated by subsection (3), which appears arbitrarily to apply to these territories the continuation of the existing relationships between them and South Africa?
The Secretary of State may say that subsection (1) merely continues the status quo, namely, the power of these territories, if that power already exists, to amend their own relationships with South Africa. If that is so, why is subsection (3) in the Bill? I hope that my obscurity is no worse than anyone else's, but it would help if he could throw some light on the matter.

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to anticipate the debate on subsection (3), to which various amendments have been tabled, but the subsections of this Clause should be read together.
I must confess that I do not like the wording of this Bill, and I said so to my advisers. Personally, I would have rewritten the whole thing, but for the fact that it follows exactly the precedents of earlier laws dealing with the same problem, and it is a bad principle for Parliament to pass laws dealing with the same matter in the same way but using different words on different occasions. That is the only reason that I can give for this Bill being so difficult, but I am told that the lawyers understand it very well. I have studied it, and am satisfied that it means what we all want it to mean.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) sought clarification on one point. He is not correct in saying that this Bill keeps all laws


which apply to South Africa unchanged for one year. Subsection (1) says that during this period of one year everything shall remain as though South Africa had not left the Commonwealth and had not become a Republic. If, as I have already mentioned, some legislation is due automatically to come to an end during that year, it will come to an end, and nothing will affect that.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend is so disarming when he says that he does not like his own Bill that I am tempted to help him in every way that I can, but I must confess that I do not really think that he has met the points I made in moving the Amendment. Like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), I still do not understand some of the points involved. I do not understand why this form of words is not in subsection (3) rather than in subsection (1). I hope that this short debate will give my right hon. Friend the opportunity to mull over it before the next stage of the Bill comes. I hope that he will then produce a Bill which he likes a little bit better. In that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end to insert:
Provided that any enactment or statutory instrument in force or coming into force in the United Kingdom, being an enactment or statutory instrument which authorises or empowers trustees to invest in stock issued by a government shall no longer have effect in relation to stock issued after the passing of this Act by the Republic of South Africa.
This Amendment aims at removing a facility which the South African Government enjoy at present as a member of the Commonwealth but which they would not have were South Africa a foreign country. The facility can be removed simply and without any difficulty or complications. I see no reason why it should not be removed.
The facility is that they can borrow money more cheaply than if South African loans were not considered to be trustee stock. South African loans are considered as trustee stock and, as a result, trustees can take them up and invest money held by them on trust in South African stock. The number of people, therefore, who can and want to invest

in South African stock is greater than it would be otherwise.
If this class of stock were wiped off the trustee list, no persons holding trust funds would be able to invest in South African stock. That means, as I have said, that the South African Government would be unable from now onwards to borrow money comparatively cheaply—and if this Amendment is not passed they might well use this next year to borrow large sums. I would certainly advise them to do so, and any sensible financier would borrow large sums at the lower rate of interest which he will probably be able to have during this coming year if my Amendment is not accepted.
I do not propose to touch past trustee stock. If people have, in the past, invested in South African stock, and they still hold that stock, it will remain as trustee stock if my Amendment is accepted. The proposal is that, in future, no South African Government should be able to borrow money with the advantage of coming under the Trustee Act, 1925, which is the Act that allows South Africa stock to be trustee stock.
As we all know, the Government of South Africa are very sensitive about their financial position. At one time they found that large sums of money were being withdrawn after Sharpeville and after the general feeling of horror which South African action aroused. They were considerably shaken by this withdrawal. If not, perhaps, the Government, certainly many of the most powerful financiers in South Africa were shaken.
My Amendment, if accepted, would do a great deal of good in bringing to the notice of the South African people that, by their own volition, they are no longer to be considered part of the Commonwealth, by showing them what this means in terms of borrowing money. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to have in this Bill a Clause saying that the Consolidation Act shall no longer apply to South Africa. I see no difficulty in that. It would appear to be a simple operation. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it. He has said that the object of the Bill is simple and straightforward. It deals mainly with simple matters, legislative matters, many of which could have been perfectly easily changed had the right hon. Gentleman


so desired to do, such as the Dentists Act and others. I hope that he will look on this as something in that category which could be left out of his standstill legislation and, as a result, the people of South Africa, the financiers of South Africa, will realise what it means for South Africa to leave the Commonwealth.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I should like to support the idea behind the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), but not for the reasons he stated. At present, the House of Commons is considering the Trustee Investment's Bill, which will considerably widen the powers of trustees. It may well be a desirable thing that the list of narrower-range trustee securities as defined in that Bill should be small. Therefore I think that the proposal advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is quite attractive, but I do not think it at all attractive in the context of this Bill.
I wish to support his idea, but not his method. I think that he might well achieve his object by moving an Amendment to the Trustee Investments Bill, which would have the same financial effect, but without this rather peculiar moralising effect which the right hon. Gentlemen has suggested.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) that this is not the Bill in which to make such an Amendment. An Amendment of this kind could be moved during the Committee stage of the Trustees Investments Bill, which is now being considered, if certain hon. Members—and I am not one of them—feel that such a change should be made.
As I have said before, and as I hope all hon. Members know, opinion is acutely divided in South Africa. The decision to set up a republic was passed by an extremely narrow majority; there is a substantial volume of opinion there against apartheid. I look forward to the day when South Africa will come back to the Commonwealth. Therefore, I do not want to put anything into a Bill which appears to make that contingency more remote. In my view, this Amendment would be regarded as an additional

slap in the eye for our friends in the Union who want, if they can, to remain as near as possible to the old country.
As I understand it, South Africa will remain in the sterling area, which is something we should bear in mind before introducing such prohibitions against investment, not by ordinary investors, or speculators, but by trustees. They know their job as well as anybody. Under the Trustee Investments Bill trustees will to a certain extent be confined in what they can do which is one of the objections to that Bill. I do not want to go into the matter now, but all sorts of regulations are laid down in the Bill which many trustees will find difficult to understand without legal assistance. For that reason alone I think that if an Amendment of this kind is to be made it should be made in that Bill. It would be quite wrong to add a provision to this Bill which some people might consider an insult.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish to speak in a similar vein to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). With respect to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), I think that to accept this Amendment would be a hasty and ill-advised step. This Bill is described as
a standstill Measure designed to maintain unchanged the laws governing the relationship between the United Kingdom (and dependencies) and South Africa for a period of one year…
Yet, by moving this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is choosing to make a significant change very hastily.
As I suggested in a speech on an earlier Amendment, I think we should use the standstill period to ponder very carefully on the relationship between this country and South Africa in these new circumstances. It would be most unwise for use to decide at once what that relationship should be. I do not wish to be unfair to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, but the whole tone of his approach to this problem seems to indicate that he wishes to treat the Union of South Africa worse than any country in the world. He wishes to behave towards the Union in a different way from the attitude of this country to any other country in the world.

Mr. Dugdale: I said that I wanted to treat South Africa as a foreign country.


South Africa has elected to be a foreign country, and I wish to treat her as a foreign country.

Mr. Gower: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is what I do not want to do. South Africa is not a foreign country. There are a million or more people in South Africa who are British by descent. If that means nothing to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, I hope that it means something to hon. Members on this side of the Committee and also to hon. Members opposite. I believe that it means something to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, as he has shown by the speeches which he has made on the subject.
I wish to make clear to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich that I am not suggesting that any of us who take the line I am now taking wish to forget certain aspects of South African policy in recent years. But are not there many other countries in the world whose policies might have been objected to by this country at some period in history? Are not there many countries in the world whose policies, to such a fortunate democratic country as this, would prove objectionable?
As was said by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, the decision to leave the Commonwealth was taken by a very small majority and it may not prove an irrevocable decision. It may be that the policies of the South African Government which have led to this result may not commend themselves to the European population in South Africa in the future. But if we wish to make those policies attractive to people of European descent in South Africa, surely the best way to do so would be to take this hasty and seemingly bitter action. If we wish to force the people of South Africa behind their Government, we could do it in no better way than that which the right hon. Gentleman suggests by his Amendment, which I hope on reflection he will decide not to press. It might have most unfortunate consequences which the right hon. Gentleman would not like.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: During the Committee stage discussions on this Bill on Monday, I noticed that

in most of the speeches from hon. Members opposite there emerged this same mood of self-deprecation and self-condemnation about the South African situation as has been expressed by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower).
Let us remind ourselves that it was not this country which expelled South Africa from the Commonwealth. It was the South African Government who of their own volition decided to break the links with the Crown and declare themselves a Republic against the indignant protests of the million-and-a-half people who took the contrary view and whose views have been ridden roughshod over by the Nationalist Government who have relentlessly pursued a line of policy completely insensitive to the point of view of those people and without any kind of suspicion of conciliation towards that admittedly strong point of view. In fact, during the fiercest period of the application of harsh emergency laws some of the leaders of that point of view were incarcerated for many months without trial.
When it came to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, there was no lack of conciliation on the part of the British Government. Indeed, for months, even for years, some of us have had occasion to castigate Her Majesty's Government for providing a shield and shelter for South Africa at the United Nations. Time and again Motions were tabled from this side of the House condemning the Government for their policy, and for the British Government to be condemned now for bitterness and severity in this matter seems to me a most grotesque form of penance, uncalled for by the situation. The South African Government have deliberately taken this course, and they cannot now have their cake politically inside South Africa—bitter as the taste will prove to be as the months go by—and eat it.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing less than justice to their Government in this matter. Happily, for once, I am glad to find myself in support of the Government. The attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite will give no aid and comfort to those who are resisting these extreme Nationalist apartheid policies in South Africa. On the contrary, we well know that the majority of South Africans who take an anti-apartheid point of view


have been delighted by the action of the British Government, and delighted by the consequences of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in so far as they have brought the South African Government face to face with the inevitable consequences of their policies which have so gravely outraged the common law of the Commonwealth, its binding force, or what ought to be its binding force, and it is high time that this mood of self-depreciation and self-abuse stopped.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I would not have intervened had it not been for the rather extraordinary observations of the hon. and learned Member. He twice charged my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) with what he called self-deprecation, which I took to be a verbal slip for self-depreciation.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: It was not a verbal slip.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman used a word inapt to describe what was his apparent meaning. Further, in the course of his observations it appeared that it was the Government whom he associated with my hon. Friend's strictures about taking up a bitter and vindictive attitude. But it was not the Government who were the target of my hon. Friend's proper criticism. It was the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), and it is within the recollection of those who have taken part in these proceedings that his consistent attitude has been, if not vindictive—I do not want to use any harsh words—at any rate to put on the Notice Paper Amendments seeking to increase the severity to the Union of the consequences of its withdrawal.
As the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South said, it is true that the withdrawal followed from the South African Government's own motion, but in the light of the known facts it is also clear that they proposed to withdraw because they felt that they were compelled to do so. What we are concerned with in this Bill is simply this standstill arrangement to allow us, as my hon. Friend properly said, to think out what our attitude should be, not in haste, but in regard to the effect on our country, the effect on the Commonwealth as a whole,

and the effect on the Union of South Africa particularly because it contains so many people to whom the doctrine of apartheid is also repugnant and who, if their wishes had been followed, would have remained in their previous relationship with the Commonwealth and would not have wished South Africa to become a Republic, in which case, of course, the matter would never have come before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, North, with less logic than one would expect from such an ornament of the legal profession, suggests that we should treat a country worse by reason of the fact that there is a substantial minority opposed to the opinions which one does not like.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am not suggesting that they should be treated worse. I am suggesting that they should be treated as a foreign power. That is all. No more, and no less.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am referring to the observations in the earlier part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech when he pointed out that there was this substantial minority against becoming a republic, and he appeared, at any rate to me, to pray that in aid as a reason why we should now be more severe towards the Union of South Africa. With respect, the logical deduction would have been precisely the opposite.
If there are—and we know there are—a large minority of people there who would not wish to be a republic and who would not wish to follow the racial policies of which we disapprove, surely that would be a reason for not seeking to heap Pelion on Ossa, not trying to make more severe the measures in regard to South Africa. It was that which I felt was so illogical, and uncharacteristically so, in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it is a point of view which should not commend itself either to the good sense or to the humanity of the Committee.

Mr. Braine: I must resist the temptation to follow the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) down the path of political argument and denunciation which he followed. I must do so in this context because the right


hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in a reasoned, calm, and sensible way, counselled us to be cautious.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I said something about the present position which the Bill should preserve—subject, of course, to any enactments which we may pass in the next few months.
Under the Trustee Act, 1925, those trustees who do not have wider powers under the instruments setting up their trusts may invest in securities issued by Commonwealth or Colonial Governments, provided that these are registered under the Colonial Stock Acts, and the conditions laid down by the United Kingdom Treasury are observed. Down the years the South African Government have observed these conditions, and their stocks are therefore a permissible investment for trustees under the 1925 Act.
The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to take South African Government stocks out of the reach of trustees unless their trust instruments give them wider powers of investment than are provided under the 1925 Act.

Mr. Dugdale: The Amendment refers to future stock and not to past stock. That is the important point.

Mr. Braine: It was clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he did not really understand the delicacy of the position. What I am endeavouring to do is to describe to the Committee—and many hon. Members understand this already—what exactly is involved in the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment will be to take South African Government stocks out of the reach of trustees unless their trust instruments give them wider powers of investment than are provided under the 1925 Act.
The whole purpose of the Bill which we are now considering is to provide a maximum period of twelve months within which we can consider the very many detailed legislative provisions made necessary by South Africa ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth. That objective is not going to be reached if we insert specific provisions in the Bill,

as the right hon. Gentleman is now asking us to do, excluding particular items of legislation from its scope. We see no advantage in that whatsoever. In fact, we should be doing precisely what it is the object of the Bill to avoid doing, namely, making up our minds on particular items without an adequate period for consideration both of these items themselves and of how they fit together in the wider picture.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) reminded us, hon. Members will be aware that there is a Trustee Investments Bill now in Standing Committee upstairs. I understand that it has twelve Clauses, and I am informed that the Standing Committee has reached Clause 6. This Trustee Investments Bill radically reforms the whole law relating to investments by trustees. I am advised that if the Bill were enacted by 31st May, which is extremely unlikely, the present Bill would apply; that is to say, whatever the Trustee Investments Bill provides would have the force of law as far as South Africa is concerned up to 31st May, 1962. But if, as appears much more likely, the other Bill is not passed before 31st May, then the present Bill will not apply to it. I can say that, in that event, the Government will consider introducing an Amendment which will bring the Trustee Investments Bill under the umbrella of this Bill.
I do not know and thus cannot say what eventually will be decided in respect of South African Government stocks, whether they will be allowed to continue to be eligible for investment by trustees or whether they will be excluded from the field of securities in which trustees, whose powers are governed by legislation, may invest. I cannot say, and I do not believe that it will be wise for the Committee to try to reach any final conclusion this afternoon. In fact, the advice of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry was sound, and I commend it to the Committee.
It will be wise to leave the matter to be dealt with when we consider the permanent legislation which will be required to deal with the whole body of law before the end of the standstill period. In


the meantime, I have no doubt that hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee upstairs, my right hon. Friend and all those present in this Committee will take due note of what has been said. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, having gathered the sense of the Committee in the way in which I have certainly gathered it, will feel that it would be right to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: I think that a good deal of the earlier debate on this Amendment was very much misconceived by some hon. Members who seemed to forget that the trustee Acts are put on the Statute Book by Parliament to safeguard the interests of trusts in this country. They talk about a slap in the eye for our friends in the Union, but the real danger, if no amendment in the law is made, is that South Africa will be able to borrow money from trustees in this country. The beneficiaries of trusts in this country might be very badly used by the trustees investing in South African stocks which, obviously, in the present state of South Africa cannot be a very sound investment when there are rumours of rebellion and demands for independence inside the territory and when a defence Act is being passed shortly for the purpose of what is called maintaining law and order, but which really means suppressing the natural desire of human beings to express themselves and to demand their human rights.
Surely South African Government stock is hardly a suitable stock in which we could accept responsibility for advising trustees in this country to place money intended for the beneficiaries of those trusts. It seemed to me, therefore, that much of the argument was all at sea. Hon. Members seemed to think that, in some way, we were trying to injure the interests of someone in South Africa. Not at all. My right hon. Friend's Amendment is directed to the purpose of trying to help and safeguard the interests of beneficiaries of trusts in this country.
I think that the Under-Secretary of State has cleared up the matter very considerably by what he has said. He indicated that it might well be that those considering the Trustee Investments Bill in Committee at present ought to have regard to the danger that the South African Government might now in their very difficult financial position seek to

issue stocks and to invite applications from trustees in this country for stocks which really are very unsafe investments.
At the moment, South Africa is undoubtedly in severe economic difficulties, as everyone knows who reads the financial Press at all. The suggestion made by the Under-Secretary of State, as I understand it, is that the appropriate instrument for making an alteration to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries of trusts in this country would be the Trustee Investments Bill and that the place to put that forward would be in the Committee which is now considering it, where the value of South African trustee stocks issued after South Africa becomes a Republic could be thoroughly assessed in comparison with other stocks.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not quite understand this. Supposing that the Trustee Investments Bill now in Committee were altered in order to leave out South African Government stock if it came into operation before this consolidation Act about which I am speaking has been altered, in other words, while the standstill Bill is law, can we be certain that any alteration made under the Trustee Investments Bill will really become a law?

Mr. Marquand: I need hardly tell my right hon. Friend that I am unable to answer that question. I must rely on the Government, who have their legal advisers available to them to give the proper answer to that question.
I was about to conclude by suggesting to my right hon. Friend that he should press for some clarification that this would be the way out. I am all in sympathy with his purpose of protecting the beneficiaries of trust in this country and of trustees in this country from being misled into investing in stocks whose future is very much in doubt. I am all in favour of and have sympathy with what my right hon. Friend has said, but I would ask him seriously to consider, and perhaps to press for further clarification, whether this is the appropriate point at which to achieve our aim.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Did not I hear the Under-Secretary of State say that the Government were proposing to put down an Amendment to the Trustee Investments Bill on Report, or later on?

Mr. Marquand: As in Committee we can all speak as often as we like, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that he can address his question to the Under-Secretary of State in that Committee?

Mr. Bowles: I happen to be the Chairman of the Committee dealing with the Bill, but I am not in a position to make a report to this Committee on where we are with it. I thought that I heard the Under-Secretary of State say that the Government were going to put down an Amendment to the Trustee Investments Bill either on Report or when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Braine: The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. J. Wells) and I said that we would consider introducing an Amendment which would bring the Trustee Investments Bill under the umbrella of this

Bill. I feel that there is no need to go beyond that, because, after all, the answer to the point which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) was making is that in any case the House, ultimately, will have an opportunity for dealing with the matter in the consolidated measure that we must introduce before the end of the standstill period. It would be unwise for us to tie our hands here this, afternoon. The general sense of what has been said by the Committee has been understood by my right hon. Friend and myself.

5.30 p.m.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 264.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[5.31 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
McLeavy, Frank


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Awbery, Stan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Gunter, Ray
Mapp, Charles


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, William (west Fife)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Marsh, Richard


Boardman, H.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mason, Roy


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Boyden, James
Healey, Denis
Mendelson, J. J.


Brookway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Millan, Bruce


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Monslow, Walter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, A. V.
Moody, A. S.


Callaghan, James
Holman, Percy
Morris, John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.


Chapman, Donald
Howell, Charles A. (B'ham, Perry Bar)
Moyle, Arthur


Colliok, Percy
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Neal, Harold


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will


Darling, George
Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Peart, Frederick


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Deer, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Diamond, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Probert, Arthur


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Proctor, W. T.


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Randall, Harry


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, E. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, walter (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, J. (Paisley)


Evans, Albert
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Finch, Harold
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Logan, David
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Forman, J. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Edward


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, Arthur


Ginsburg, David

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)




Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey, Frederick


Small, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Timmons, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Warbey, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Swingler, Stephen
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Sylvester, George
White, Mrs. Eirene
Zilliacus, K.


Symonds, J. B.
Whitlock, William



Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John


Aitken, W. T.
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Allason, James
Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Arbuthnot, John
Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, John
Loveys, Walter H.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
McAdden, Stephen


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gardner, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Berkeley, Humphry
Goodhew, Victor
Maitland, Sir John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Gough, Frederick
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bidgood, John C.
Gower, Raymond
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Green, Alan
Marshall, Douglas


Bishop, F. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimond, J.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bossom, Clive
Grimston, Sir Robert
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Box, Donald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brewis, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col-SirWalter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Brown, Alan, (Tottenham)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morrison, John


Bullard, Denys
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Michael


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chataway, Christopher
Hobson, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hollingworth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins, Alan
Peel, John


Cole, Norman
Hornby, R. P.
Percival, Ian


Collard, Richard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peyton, John


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Costain, A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, I. J.


Coulson, J. M.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pitt, Miss Edith


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jackson, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Knox
James, David
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jennings, J. C.
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Doughty, Charles
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rees, Hugh


Drayson, G. B.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Renton, David


Duncan, Sir James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Eden, John
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, J.
Roots, William


Emery, Peter
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, Ronald


Errington, Sir Eric
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Seymour, Leslie







Sharples, Richard
Teeling, William
Walker, Peter


Shaw, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smithers, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Turner, Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Speir, Rupert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stevens, Geoffrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wise, A. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vane, W. M. F.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Woodnutt, Mark


Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woollam, John


Talbot, John E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Tapsell, Peter
Wade, Donald
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Walder, David
Mr. Gibson-Watt and




Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "Kingdom", to insert:
only with the consent of the Legislative Assembly or other duly constituted authority of Southern Rhodesia or any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory".
This Amendment is a very reasonable one, as I think the Secretary of State will agree. It provides that any existing arrangements between Colonies and Protectorates on the one hand and the Union of South Africa on the other should not be continued, as a result of this Measure, without their consent. I am heartened in moving the Amendment because the Secretary of State, in the debate on 24th April, when dealing with the problems that arise from the exodus of South Africa from the Commonwealth, said:
These matters will not only need to be studied here in London, but will have to be fully discussed with the Government of the Union. Colonial Governments will also be affected, and will need to be consulted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1961; Vol. 639, c.103.]
The Amendment would give statutory effect to that obligation.
It is a little difficult to move the Amendment, because it is difficult to understand what the subsection means. I hope that the Secretary of State will throw a great are of light on it. I am not clear about its scope. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is clearer about it than I am, because its obscurity is enhanced by the obscurity of subsection (2), which says that:
'existing law' means any Act of Parliament or other enactment or instrument whatsoever, and any rule of law…
Perhaps some of our legal colleagues can help us in this matter, but I am at a loss to understand what is meant by "any rule of law". This definition of

"existing law" means that the statutory or other relationships between the Colonies, Protectorates and United Kingdom Trust Territories on the one hand and the Union of South Africa on the other will be continued by the unilateral act of this House and will commit those territories to the continuance of relationships which, in view of South Africa's exodus from the Commonwealth, they may no longer wish to continue.
Does the subsection include all the defence arrangements or trade agreements concluded between these Colonies and Protectorates and the Union of South Africa? If it does, is it not quite wrong that this provision should be continued for twelve months in the new situation following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, unless those territories give their consent to such continuance? As the Secretary of State said earlier, in reply to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the House always recognises that our dependent territories pass laws which are within their competence to pass and which may deal with some of the matters which are before us this afternoon, and also recognises their right to amend those laws, and presumably to alter those relationships, even if the House wishes to continue the direct relationships which exist between the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa.
5.45 p.m.
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State make this point because, when I put my name to the Amendment, I had very much in mind the fact that when I was a delegate to the United Nations Assembly on behalf of the


Labour Government in 1949 I had the job, in Committee 3 of the General Assembly, of putting our Government's point of view on certain important Conventions which were before that Committee. I remember in particular the work I had to do on the Convention on Prostitution—one with which this country was in sympathy but which, in the end, we refused to sign because we could not get the other United Nations delegates to let us include what was called the Colonial Application Clause, the purpose of which is to make it clear that, even in the case of dependent non-self-governing territories of our Commonwealth, we have always taken the line that although they are not independent or even completely self-governing they are none the less on the road to self-government, and that it has always been a point of policy of United Kingdom Governments to give them as great a freedom of decision as possible on matters affecting their internal affairs.
Part of the Colonial Application Clause which we moved, and which we could not get the majority of the General Assembly to accept, ran as follows:
Each party to this Convention agrees to take as soon as possible the necessary steps to extend the application of this Convention to such Territories"—
that is, those for whose international relationships we remain responsible—
subject where necessary for constitutional reasons to the consent of the Governments of such Territories".
We had a very long discussion in the General Assembly, trying to point out to the rest of the members that this was not an attempt by the United Kingdom Government to evade their obligations but rather an insistence on the principle, which was of very great importance to us, that it was not right to commit these countries by our acts in fields which might be considered to lie within their domestic jurisdiction and choice.
It therefore seems to me that this present Amendment is very much in keeping with that tradition, and with the spirit of the Colonial Application Clause. It would clearly be intolerable if, by the passing of this Bill, the House of Commons were to impose upon newly self-governing countries like Tanganyika, or even on non-self-governing countries like Kenya and Uganda, the continuance

of existing relationships with South Africa which they might wish to change now that South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth.
That might be a point of considerable substance. We know that one of the decisive factors leading to South Africa's exit from the Commonwealth was the very clear and emphatic stand taken by Mr. Julius Nyerere, newly the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, who, before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference met, made it quite clear that if South Africa were to continue to be a member of the Commonwealth, Tanganyika, on reaching independence, would very seriously have to consider whether she could remain in it.
That shows that the territories referred to in the subsection may have very strong individual approaches to this new situation, and it would clearly be contrary to all our traditions in our relationships with them to impose this standstill upon them. The Secretary of State may say—and here we get into the deep waters of the obscurity we have endured in regard to an earlier Amendment—that the mysterious wording in subsection (1)
…unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having power to alter that law…
covers this point, because he has explained to his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that this sentence was inserted in order to allow dependent territories to amend provisions in laws within their own competence.
If that is so, however, surely subsection (1), as it stands, contradicts subsection (3). There is a very alarming obscurity in the Bill as it stands—a Bill of which the Secretary of State himself has said that he does not at all like the wording. I would suggest to him that if he cannot give some assurance rather more clear in its terms and comforting in its substance than that which he gave on subsection (1), we must clarify the position by including the words suggested in the Amendment.
At the very least, there can be no harm in it if the sentence in subsection (1) means what the right hon. Gentleman earlier told us it did mean. My Amendment has, at least, the virtue of being put in simple and clear language. For that reason, I hope that the Secretary of


State will be in sympathy with its purpose and, being in sympathy with it, will put everyone's fears and suspicions a rest by accepting it.

Mr. Gower: The Committee will agree that this Amendment could be of great importance to the territories which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has in mind. As the hon. Lady will agree, she has in mind, predominantly and almost entirely, the Protectorates, Colonies and Trust Territories in the Continent of Africa, and I should have thought that the effect of incorporating these words could be most undesirable.
The purpose of this Measure, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, is
…to maintain unchanged the laws governing the relationship between the United Kingdom…and South Africa…
I hope that either my right hon. Friend ox my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that if we do not pass this temporary provision Bill then upon the coming into being of the South African Republic there would be no relationship between this country and South Africa, or between the Colonies and Protectorates in South Africa and the Union, other than that of foreign countries.
The hon. Lady will have noticed that in our previous discussions there has been on both sides an awareness that the new relationship between this country and South Africa cannot be easily settled. Many speakers have said that we should ponder and consider that relationship with great care before arriving at lasting and final decisions. With great respect, I should have thought that even greater care should be taken in deciding the ultimate relationship between our Protectorates and Colonies in Africa and the Union.
The hon. Lady will be aware that the relationship between some of these Colonial Territories and Protectorates and the Union is a very peculiar one, a very delicate one. The nationals or inhabitants of the Protectorates habitually go to the Union in search of employment. She may think that to be undesirable. She may think it much more desirable that they should not do so. The fact remains that they have done so for a very long time, and continue to do so, and that if the possibility of their

moving easily into the Union were withheld it could inflict great harm upon those people themselves. It could be most injurious to their standard of living.
This movement is not confined to the Protectorates—to the people in places like Swaziland. It extends even to people in Nyasaland, who sometimes go right into the heart of the Union to find temporary employment. I therefore respectfully submit that where there is such an involved and delicate relationship as this, we need just as long—if not longer—for our consideration of what relationship should subsist between those territories and the Union as we do to consider the relationships between this country and the Union.
I believe that in matters of law it has usually been the prerogative of the United Kingdom Parliament to retain conduct of foreign affairs, at any rate until the country attains self-governing status. In other words, though a country may in its administration and institutions be self-governing, until it attains all the powers of self-government the power of entering into relationships with other countries, and so on, has always constitutionally been retained in the United Kingdom Parliament.
That is even more the case when we consider territories which the Bill describes as being Protectorates or Trust Territories. In those cases, very obviously, the duty to make arrangements for diplomatic representation, to enter into treaties and so on with foreign countries rests very firmly upon this Government—

6.0 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that the subsection deals with existing laws which operate as the laws of those territories?

Mr. Gower: But those laws differ in the way in which they have been enacted according to the territory in which they apply. In some cases they have been passed merely by the edict of a governor representing this country in the territory. In other cases they have been enacted by a partially representative assembly and confirmed by the Governor under prerogative powers. In other cases they have been passed, as in Southern Rhodesia, by a Government who have


virtually enjoyed self-government since 1923 but in respect of whose foreign affairs this Parliament has retained ultimate responsibility. Thus, there is a great variety of legal enactments passed in different ways in these territories.
Nevertheless, in matters of foreign affairs and diplomatic representation the relationship between these territories and the Union of South Africa, which will, in effect, be a foreign country, will obviously continue to remain firmly the responsibility of this Parliament until those territories themselves attain self-government.
In supplementation of my earlier remarks, I should have thought that, constitutionally, the Amendment would be not merely undesirable but contrary to our whole constitutional background and our rules of law. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will feel that the Amendment—no doubt she had very good intentions—could effect very great harm indeed, and not least to those territories to which she has referred and probably, above all, to the people of the Protectorates and Trust Territories themselves.

Mr. Brockway: Before I direct myself to the argument to which I have just listened with interest, I should like to say a word to the Secretary of State. I hope very much that he will say that the Government accept the Amendment. My hope springs from his attitude and speeches while he has been in Sierra Leone. Those speeches have been welcomed very sincerely by all hon. Members. The particular speech which seemed to me to have a direct effect upon the Amendment was the one in which he dealt with defence arrangements for Sierra Leone. It was very Liberal, very democratic and very generous. He told Sierra Leone "We do not want to impose on you any defence arrangements. If there are to be any defence arrangements between us, it must be through the spontaneous good will of the people of Sierra Leone; it must be by their consent and agreement." That speech, which I so much welcomed, represents the spirit of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
As I understand it, the Clause arises from the fact that not only are there

treaties between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa, but Her Majesty's Government in their capacity as a colonial Power have also involved the Colonial Territories, Trust Territories and Protectorates in treaties and arrangements with the Union of South Africa, and the Clause provides that these treaties and arrangements, so far as they affect the Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories, shall apply to them as well as to the United Kingdom and South Africa.
My hon. Friend's Amendment suggests that in the case of the Colonial Territories the Bill should not apply except with the consent of the legislatures of those territories. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has argued that that would be harmful to the territories themselves and that it would be a precedent which would be tearing up constitutional law as we have known it, because even self-governing territories do not control their foreign affairs.
I want to look at some of the Colonial Territories in relation to the Bill. I do not think that our consideration should be limited to the territories which are in the Continent of Africa, but I will deal first of all with those territories.
Yesterday Tanganyika obtained the status of full self-government. Mr. Julius Nyerere, who was its Chief Minister, became recognised as Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has said, the opinion expressed by Mr. Nyerere in relation to South Africa had a considerable influence on the decision which was reached at the Prime Ministers' Conference which led to the withdrawal of the Union of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Before the end of this year Tanganyika will be an independent territory. Yet here we are today, with Tanganyika yesterday becoming fully self-governing and in December becoming absolutely independent, saying in this Bill that any treaties which affect Tanganyika in relation to the Union of South Africa shall continue to have the power of law for a maximum of a year, whatever the opinion of the legislature and the Prime Minister and whatever, in December, the independent Government of Tanganyika may decide. That is an absolutely impossible attitude for us to adopt if we pay any attention to democratic principles.
Let us look at the West Indies. They become independent next year. They have shown that they take as strong a view about apartheid in the Union of South Africa as Tanganyika does. Yet here is this Parliament, which recognises the right of Jamaica to self-government under Prime Minister Norman Manley, which recognises the rights of Trinidad and so on, and which says, "Next year you become completely independent and a part of the Commonwealth", nevertheless saying, despite their dislike of South Africa and their resolutions supporting the idea of an economic boycott of South Africa, "We are going to carry in the British House of Commons a Measure which means that for one year your country must maintain any treaties and arrangements relating to South Africa which were imposed before you had self-government".

Mr. Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the territories whose nationals go to South Africa to find work? That is the nub of the problem.

Mr. Brockway: I have an Amendment dealing with Nyasaland which very directly affects that matter.
I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. I will merely say that the arguments which I have advanced in the case of Tanganyika in Africa and Jamaica in the Caribbean apply also to Singapore in Asia. It was the Government of Malaya who took the initiative a year ago on this issue in the Prime Ministers' Conference—and, if anything, the Government of Singapore is more to the Left than the Government of Malaya. That very fact indicates that as Singapore is moving towards its independence, it would regard almost as an insult that this Parliament should say that treaties and arrangements should continue to operate between it and the Union of South Africa when the Union of South Africa has been excluded from the Commonwealth.
I take the next group of territories—I am trying to be brief—which seem to be directly affected. They are the High Commission Territories—Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. I think that all of us rejoice that during this last year Basutoland has established a Legislature and Bechuanaland is going to do so. The relationship of these territories on

the edge of South Africa, in one case surrounded by South African territory, to South Africa itself, is of first importance—perhaps of greater importance than the relationship of any territory.
I say to the House that when we think of that relationship and the uncertainties of these territories, the uncertainties indicated in the Second Reading debate as to whether our representative in the Union is to be an Ambassador or not or will be a High Commissioner for those territories—when we consider all the difficulties, surely we are right in saying that before this Parliament lays it down that treaties or arrangements covering these territories shall have a standstill of one year, their Legislatures should, in the first instance, be consulted.
Finally, I deal with a third group of territories—territories which include Nyasaland, to which the hon. Member for Barry has referred, a group of territories which already have African majorities. From Nyasaland large numbers of Nyasas go to the Union of South Africa. Again I say that their legislatures should have the right to decide. Their legislatures are very closely affected. The very fact that so many in Nyasaland are employed in the Union of South Africa strengthens the view that the legislature of Nyasaland should have the opportunity to declare its views upon these matters.
I end on the constitutional argument which the hon. Member has put forward with force. I recognise it. I believe that what we have to recognise is that the tempo of events in the Continent of Africa and the Colonial Territories today is so great that if we put up legal barriers to their expression and to democracy, if we say in the House that we have the right to lay down what is good for them without consultation with their legislatures, we shall find that they will sweep past us and we shall not be able to control them.
For these reasons, if the hon. Member for Barry will forgive me, I reject the arguments he put forward, and I hope very much that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I want to make one observation and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) for not being in the


Chamber when he began his speech. I had another engagement which I had to keep. As I understood it, some of his arguments were based on the fact that Singapore and other parts of the Commonwealth may presently achieve independence. They would not come under the Bill. Surely, it applies only to the state of the law as it will be at 31st May, 1961. Therefore, if I may say so with great respect, some of the arguments which my hon. Friend so powerfully adduced would not apply. When he replies, perhaps the Minister will deal with that point because it is a real one that is worrying many people.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will accept the Amendment or will say that he is willing to accept something very much like it if he wishes to rewrite it from the point of view of its legal wording. We are optimistic that he will give a sympathetic response because of his answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) at an earlier stage, when he indicated that one reason for the somewhat peculiar form of words in subsection (1) was to give the maximum amount of flexibility and a loose rein to the Colonial Territories which had achieved varying degrees of self-government. We very much welcome that comment from him, despite our doubts about the legal position of the phrase. We welcome it because, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to be very much in harmony with some of the things he has been saying since he came to his present office. We welcome the emphasis which he has put on consultation with various parts of the Commonwealth and it is in that spirit that this Amendment is moved from this side of the Committee.
I plead with hon. Members opposite to give this Amendment a warmer welcome than it has had from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). In general, the doubts which have come from the other side of the Committee about our Amendments have been about the effect that they would have on South African opinion. We have been told that some of our Amendments were vindictive or an unnecessary slap in the face for South Africa. No one can say that about this Amendment. Whether it is inserted or not, it is hardly likely to be

considered offensive or otherwise to the Union of South Africa.
If the Amendment were not to be accepted, or if it were not to be made plain that the sense of the Amendment was included in the terms of the Bill, it would be a slap in the face for the Colonial Territories for which we are responsible and on whose good relations we very much depend. It is very important, I think, that this Amendment, or something like it, should be included in the Bill in the interests of good relations with the Colonial Territories, some of which are now very close to full independence.
Hon. Members opposite should recognise that in some of these territories feelings about the racial policies of the present South African Government go even deeper than the feeling which exists in the House of Commons. The Committee will remember the embarrassment which was caused when certain leading politicians from British Guiana who were over here for constitutional conferences became involved in incidents in London in connection with anti-apartheid demonstrations outside South Africa House. It was a vivid indication of the strength of feeling which exists on this issue in most of the Colonial Territories. We who desire good relations with these Colonial Territories in their advance towards self-government should take full account of it.
Reference has been made by hon. Members to the position in Tanganyika. It is perhaps the model held up these days of peaceful progress towards democratic independence. Mr. Julius Nyerere is one of the most respected of African nationalist leaders. The Committee will remember the very powerful intervention which he made in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, although he was not himself a member of it. I think that the Secretary of State might very well admit privately, if not publicly, that one of the most powerful arguments advanced during the discussions at that Conference was not delivered inside Lancaster House but was made in an article written by Mr. Nyerere in the Observer during the course of it.
I will remind the Secretary of State of the view of the new Prime Minister of Tanganyika about our relationships and the relationships of his country to the


Union of South Africa. This is what he said:
The apartheid policies now being practised in the Union of South Africa are a daily affront to this belief in individual human dignity. They are also a constantly reiterated insult to our own dignity as Africans, about which we cannot be expected to remain indifferent and which could inflame our own passions if not otherwise dealt with.
Mr. Nyerere went on to say—I ask the Committee to heed these words—
If we are to succeed in building up a good society in our country"—
the whole House of Commons wishes that effort to succeed—
we must therefore make our detestation of the South African system apparent in every action. The Tanganyika Government cannot afford to have any relations with the South African Government, and it must, within the bounds of international law, lend support to those who struggle against the system of apartheid".
That is a very clear indication of the kind of view held in Tanganyika, and I think that in this case Mr. Nyerere may well be taken to be speaking for leaders of nationalist opinion in many countries among our dependent Colonies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) referred to the West Indies. Many of the individual territories of the West Indies have a very high degree of internal self-government, and the West Indies Federation, as we all know, is moving very close to full independence. We should do nothing in the House of Commons which would make that passage to full independence any more difficult. It is well known that many of the West Indian Governments take a much stronger view about economic relations with the Union of South Africa than we do in this country. On the whole, opinion in this country in regard to a boycott of South African goods in that this is a matter for the conscience of the individual shopper. In the West Indies there have been official boycotts carried on with Government support, boycotts which have had a very noticeable effect on trade between the Union of South Africa and the West Indies. I saw figures recently which showed that trade had dropped, I think, by about one-fifth during the first eight months of last year.
One should consider also the position of countries like Malta and Singapore. Purely from the point of view of the self-interest of Her Majesty's Government, I

should have thought that they had enough difficulties in Malta without taking action in this country in relation to Malta's trading relations with South Africa which might inflame nationalist opinion there. The same is true of Singapore, having regard to the many difficulties of the Singapore Government in achieving a stable form of self-government there.
The argument of the hon. Member for Barry was that Her Majesty's Government ought for the time being to retain power here to dictate to the Colonial Governments and to make sure that their policies conformed with the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gower: What I was suggesting was that in regard to the relationships between those territories and the Union there was an even greater case for having time to consider such difficult questions than there was in regard to our relationships with South Africa. That is all I said.

Mr. Thomson: I shall come to that point in the hon. Member's argument in a moment. If he examines the record in due course, he will see, I think, that he plainly indicated that he regarded is as desirable that Her Majesty's Government should retain the power to dictate to these Colonial Governments and make them conform with the legislative desires of Her Majesty's Government during the present period.

Mr. Gower: No. All I said was that for constitutional reasons that was bound to be the case because, once South Africa left the Commonwealth, the prerogative power in regard to foreign affairs, and so on, would rest firmly on Her Majesty's Government for all territories except those which are self-governing.

Mr. Thomson: It was precisely that point in the hon. Member's argument which I wanted to meet because I felt that in some ways my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough conceded a strength to that point in his argument which it did not really have. It is true, of course, that in the final resort, until full independence, Her Majesty's Government retain residuary powers in respect of the foreign relations of Colonial Territories. Nevertheless, I think that the hon. Member may not be aware of the degree to which several


Colonial Territories have so advanced towards self-government that they have taken over a certain amount of responsibility for their own foreign relations.
I mentioned earlier the West Indies. One of the powers vested in the present Federal Government of the West Indies Federation, with their limited degree of independence, is, in fact, a substantial measure of responsibility for foreign relations. This has given rise to one of the difficulties in dealing with the problem of United States bases in the West Indies during the last few months. Further, Her Majesty's Government's proposals for constitutional advance in Malta included, as I recall them, a condominium between Her Majesty's Government and the Maltese Government over both defence and external relations. In practice, we in this country have conceded a very marked degree of responsibility for external relations to several Colonial Territories approaching independence.
It would be most unfortunate if the effect of the Bill, in the somewhat difficult circumstances which give rise to it, were that Her Majesty's Government turned the wheels backwards in relation to the territories we are considering. It is very important that we carry the Colonial Territories with us during the period of negotiations. To do so may cause embarrassment from time to time, but I think that the Secretary of State might feel that, in some cases, if the Colonial Territories take a line different from ours in regard to immediate relationships with the Union of South Africa that might strengthen the Government's hands in their negotiations with the Union of South Africa.
In any case, I think it is important in these discussions to remember our own interests in this country. Sometimes in the debates which have taken place certain hon. Members opposite have been so suspicious of our motives on this side that they have been inclined to put the interests of the South African Government before the real interests of this country.
In this case, the real interests of this country lie in maintaining the closest and best possible relations with our own Colonial Territories in advancing them smoothly towards self-government as quickly as may be. There is a real

danger that, because of the complications of our present relationships with South Africa, something might happen which would inflame relationships between Britain and, say, the West Indies or Tanganyika over the South African issue. It is in order to avoid that danger that we have put down the Amendment. We attach a great deal of weight to it, and we hope that the Secretary of State will give it his sympathetic consideration.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that she was not clear what subsection (3) means. Without using legal language, I would say that, in general terms, it means that the Bill applies to all colonial laws with the exception of laws which can be amended by the Legislature of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland or the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia. The hon. Lady also said that she thought that subsection (1) contradicted subsection (3) and that subsection (3) contradicted subsection (1). That is not the case. The effect of subsection (3) is to apply subsection (1), with its qualifying words which we discussed earlier, to colonial and other dependent territories. Therefore, subsection (3) cannot contradict subsection (1). All that it does is to apply subsection (1) to colonial and dependent territories.
That is also my answer to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who said that we were dictating to Colonial Territories. We are not dictating. We discussed at some length this curious phrase which was the subject of an Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of dictating. I hope that he will live up to his reputation for not dictating. I was dealing with what I thought were the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower).

Mr. Sandys: I understood the hon. Gentleman to mean that, if the Bill were not amended in the sense that he asks, it would have the effect of dictating to the Colonial Territories what their attitude towards South Africa should be. That was the argument I was seeking to


answer. If that was not what he intended, I will not pursue the point any further.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to the position in Tanganyika. However, they referred to it only as an example, but a very topical example, for the simple reason that Tanganyika will become independent during this 12 months' standstill period. The hon. Members' arguments were answered to some extent by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who explained quite correctly, that United Kingdom laws do not apply to territories which have achieved independence. To put it more correctly, perhaps, I would say that, while United Kingdom laws will continue to apply to countries which have achieved independence, they are free to amend those laws. There is an arrangement for continuity. Laws which are already in existence do not disappear overnight. The moment a country achieves independence it is no longer subject to legislation by this Parlament in Westminster, and therefore it can amend any laws which have been passed and which apply to it before its independence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was helpful in the explanation which he gave about the general constitutional position. I think that he clarified a number of points which had been raised earlier.

Mr. Brockway: If the right hon. Gentleman has left Tanganyika—

Mr. Sandys: I have not. I was about to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I made it clear that, under subsection (1), Tanganyika will have power to amend its own domestic laws.

Mr. Brockway: In December.

Mr. Sandys: No; now. Any other Colonial Territory will also have power to amend its own domestic laws. We discussed this provision earlier. What we are concerned with is laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament which have effect in overseas territories.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that hon. Members have referred to Singapore. The Bill does not apply to

Singapore because it is no longer a Colony. I think that that deals with that point.
The only point which requires explanation concerns the application of United Kingdom laws to overseas territories. Any domestic laws of overseas territorities can be amended by the law-making body which made the laws. That has been made clear earlier in the debate. The purpose of subsection (3) is to make clear that the standstill arrangement applies to all laws, orders, and so forth, not only in the United Kingdom, but also in the dependent overseas territories—subject to what I have already said, namely, that those who have made the laws can amend them. But it will apply to them in the first place. This is a matter of convenience, because some of these territories have Legislatures which are not planning to meet for a number of months. There would be a curious situation if the law lapsed and was then brought into effect again in September, or some such date. We should have a great deal of confusion.
There are, however, certain exceptions which are specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3). I summarised them a moment ago in explaining the general meaning of the subsection to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn.
I do not understand the purpose which led the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and his hon. Friends to table, not only this Amendment, but the following three Amendments to leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). They do not seem to be consistent with one another. I expected the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn to explain the reason for the Amendments. They would deny to the authorities in Rhodesia and Nyasaland the right to decide that the standstill arrangements should not apply, not only to the United Kingdom laws, but to their own domestic laws. The Amendment which has been moved does not seem to be in keeping with the other three Amendments.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: May I clear up the apparent inconsistency for the right hon. Gentleman? We tabled the last three Amendments in order to discover what was the legal position. Frankly,


we did not understand it and we were seeking information. They are not, in a sense, related to the political arguments attached to the Amendment which we are discussing.

Mr. Sandys: I am glad to hear that. In view of that explanation, I hope that the last three Amendments will not be moved.

Mr. Thomson: Mr. Thomson indicated assent.

Mr. Sandys: I will not pursue that point.
The effect of the Amendment is to give to an independent territory the right to decide that the Bill in its entirety, including the United Kingdom laws, should not apply to it. There has been a certain amount of discussion about the status and position of this Parliament and its right to legislate. It seems to me that it would be wholly contrary to constitutional usage to provide that an Act of Parliament which applies to a dependent territory shall not come into force except with the consent of that territory. It would be a completely revolutionary departure from the practice which has been adopted in the past, and I am sure that a change of that kind should not be effected merely in a rather haphazard way, as the result of an Amendment to a subsection of a Bill of this kind.
From our earlier debate I do not believe that it would be the general wish of the Committee to make a constitutional change of that kind. This suggestion was strongly resisted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton from this side and by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) from the party opposite.
As I have explained in connection with the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, we are allowing colonial authorities discretion to decide whether they wish not to apply the standstill to all or any of their own domestic laws and regulations. The effect of the Bill will be to apply the standstill to them until such time as they decide—as they will have the right to do—to alter that, and to pass a law in their territories which will have the effect of nullifying the standstill. In this event, in so far as their laws would not

apply to South Africa after she leaves the Commonwealth, from the time that the new law is passed in the Colonial Territories concerned, their domestic laws and regulations would cease to apply to South Africa.
On the other hand, we are not, and rightly not, giving these Colonial Territories discretion to decide not to apply the standstill to United Kingdom laws which extend to them. Great confusion and uncertainty would be created if United Kingdom laws such as the Merchant Shipping Act, which defines the status of British ships all over the world, were to have effect in some of our dependent territories and not in others. I hope that, with the explanation which I have given, hon. Members opposite will feel that what we are doing is reasonable and that we are not trying to dictate to these territories overseas and that in the circumstances hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: The Committee is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He said earlier that he did not like his own Bill very much. We now see why. It is strangely drafted in parts and I hope we may be forgiven for not having been able clearly to understand precisely what was meant by some of this language. That was why we put down, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) explained, three Amendments which were intended only to be probing Amendments to try to elucidate the mystery.
The right hon. Gentleman's assurance about the right of these various territories to continue to amend and alter their own laws if they so wish is, to my mind, quite satisfactory. I hope we may take it that during the period of the year, the right hon. Gentleman will, whenever the necessity may arise or wherever it may seem to be useful and helpful, consult these independent or semi-independent countries of the Commonwealth and keep closely in touch with them during the course of negotiations, so that those negotiations may be carried out in a spirit which would be satisfactory to them as well. In all the circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) would be well advised not to press the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the Secretary of State's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marquand: At an earlier stage in our deliberations, I gave notice that on this Motion I would raise again a question which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on a specific Amendment. I had the idea—I may have been wrong—that, possibly, my hon. Friend cause the Under-Secretary of State a little by surprise when at that point he raised the question of one of the laws which is affected by the Bill, namely, the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. That is a Statute which provides, in effect, for extradition processes between States of the Commonwealth.
6.45 p.m.
Nobody has any objection to extradition processes as such. From time to time, there are criminals who escape from one State to another, and on application by the State in which they are alleged to have committed their crime they may be sent back to be tried according to the laws of their own country. This applies between us and most countries in the world, but the Fugitive Offenders Act applies to our relationships in this respect of the law of extradition with Commonwealth countries.
I am no expert, but, as far as I can judge, in itself the law appears to be quite reasonable; but the Order in Council made in 1913 applying the Act of 1881 specifically to Southern Africa has caused considerable embarrassment, as I know from experience of negotiations from time to time with the right hon. Gentleman. The special arrangements in regard to Southern Africa lay down provisions for the return of "natives born south of the Sahara" and make what are literally discriminatory arrangements. I will not attempt now to go into all the detail about this. I suggest, however, that these matters clearly have to be reviewed. They are already antiquated and out of date and in the new situation where South Africa withdraws from the Commonwealth, new extradition procedures of some kind will clearly have to be arranged and the objectionable

features in the 1913 Order in Council should surely be removed. In our view, the simple way—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I am sorry to interrupt, but I hope that we will not have a debate on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and a repetition of that debate on Third Reading, because the whole of the Bill is really contained in Clause 1. I thought that it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to make that point now.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Mr. Blackburn. I am well aware that when we come to Third Reading, we will be confined entirely to what is within the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: We are also confined now entirely to what is in the Bill, because the Bill is simply Clause 1.

Mr. Marquand: I am sorry not to have taken the point more quickly. I appreciate that we are concerned here with what is in the Bill and with one of the major features of it. If I may pursue discussion regarding the Fugitive Offenders Act, which is definitely affected by the Bill, I have no desire to take up the time of the House when we reach Third Reading.
As long as the present law regarding fugitive offenders remains, we were assured by the Under-Secretary of State the other night that, where Her Majesty has responsibility, it will be administered as hitherto: that is to say, it will be administered in the High Commission Territories on the previous practice of a continued refusal to return political offenders if a request for their return has been made by the Union of South Africa.
What we are somewhat anxious about is how far that refusal can be maintained without any alteration in the 1913 Order in Council in respect to the offences laid down under the Prevention of Communism Act in South Africa. In general, the Under-Secretary of State gave us reassurances which went a long way to allay our anxieties, but he did sound, if I may say so, so well satisfied with the existing administration of the law, the existing treatment of cases when they go before the courts of the High Commission Territories, that we could not help


wondering whether the Government's intention in the negotiations is to secure some radical alteration.
It is all very well to say that no anxiety need be caused, that in these last 18 months or so the law has been carefully administered, that no one has been guilty or accused of a political offence, that if anyone were in jeopardy or danger there could be an appeal to the courts. This is an opportunity when the Government are entering into new negotiations to see that that law is brought up to date and that these peculiar provisions for special treatment for what are called "natives" should now disappear. There should be, surely, in these matters, no discrimination at all between persons of different race. There should be and can be an Act governing extradition, but it should no longer be discriminatory or appear to be discriminatory in any way between persons of different race and colour. Is that the general objective of the Government in the negotiations they are entering into?
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did give some assurances about another and a hard look at the provisions of the Nationality Act. I hope that that examination will be directed in some way to alleviating the position of any refugees who may leave South Africa and who may come to this country. We do not want in any way to encourage a flood of refugees into the High Commission Territories or into the United Kingdom, but there have been numbers of refugees, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we have approached him from time to time on behalf of some of them. We may have to do so again. We trust that we may take it that, though there is no desire to encourage a new wave of refugees, if events should turn out so unfortunately that more refugees come, they will be treated inside the High Commission Territories with the utmost care and attention, that every effort will be made to succour them and relieve them from their distress, and that no obstacle will be placed in their way if they can find their way out of the High Commission Territories into Tanganyika or the United Kingdom.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I share my right hon. Friend's anxiety about the effect the Clause has on continuing in force the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

Obviously we do not want to put any difficulties in the way of the extradition from the High Commission Territories of real criminals who manage to escape there from South Africa, but as the law now stands it can enable the South African Government to apply to the High Commission Territories for the apprehension and return of a fugitive from South Africa to the High Commission Territories on the ground, for instance, of the commission of various offences against the apartheid laws.
The test is the commission of an offence punishable by up to 13 months' imprisonment or more, and some of those laws carry penalties of that kind and, indeed, more severe penalties than that. Thus the offence of high treason is within the ambit of the Fugitive Offenders Act, quite apart from the South African legislation which my right hon. Friend has referred to.
It is perfectly true, as the Joint Undersecretary of State said on Monday night, that the courts of the High Commission Territories have taken a rather tough view about these applications from South Africa and have made very good use indeed of the powers and grounds for refusal which exist in Section 19 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, but it is by no means certain that the courts will always be able to do so. It is right to emphasise that it is a matter for the courts and it is not, therefore, possible for directions to be given to the courts as to how they should perform their duties.
I should have thought that there was a good case, at any rate during this interim period, for resolving the difficulty by amending the 1913 Order in Council which applied the Fugitive Offenders Act to the High Commission Territories, so that it shall not apply to any political offence or to treason, and so that for there to be any backing of a warrant for a fugitive offender the offence must be both an offence in the territory from which the offender has run and in the territory to which he has run. That would exclude the apartheid laws from the ambit of this machinery of a kind of extradition.
As the Fugitive Offenders Act now stands—and it is to be extended in force for a period of up to one year—there is no need for the offence in question to


be against the law in the two territories, namely, South Africa and the High Commission Territories, and it is quite enough that the offence is an offence against the law of South Africa alone.
I have reason to think that power to amend the Order in Council as I have suggested flows from Section 17 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, and that the amendment would be a not very difficult or complicated piece of machinery to bring into force. It would put beyond a peradventure the question that any political refugee who has escaped to the High Commission Territories shall be immune there from the risk of extradition. The effect of the kind of Order in Council amendment which I have suggested would be to bring the law on fugitive offenders between the Union of South Africa and the High Commission Territories into line with the Extradition Act, 1870, for foreign countries.
This is not a fanciful or a frivolous matter, but a matter causing a great deal of concern to the political refugees who are now in the High Commission Territories. I hope that the Government will be able to give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion.

Mr. J. Wells: I want only to ask my right hon. Friend one very simple, straightforward question of a rather parochial nature. Can he please give us some assurance about the position of British civil servants who are South African citizens, South African nationals, who are proud of their nationality and who are at the same time anxious to continue their employment in the British Civil Service? I am aware of a number of such people. I know it is only a very small number, but they are most anxious to have an assurance that their employment will be continued and that they will not have to renounce their nationality of which they are extremely proud.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I have listened with a good deal of sympathy to the points made, with great restraint, about the Fugitive Offenders Act, and I can give the House a general assurance that while I do not think that there is any cause for anxiety at the moment we recognise that this is essentially one of those matters which will have to be looked at carefully, and I have no doubt that some

different arrangement will have to be made. Exactly what form it will take, I cannot say. It may take the form of a more normal extradition treaty between two countries. I am sure the Committee will realise that it would be intolerable to allow all arrangements for extradition to lapse between territories which have no policed boundaries of any kind. Naturally, to do that would be a gift to criminals. Whatever views we hold about apartheid, we certainly would not wish to allow a free movement of that kind, without any possibility of attaching people who commit genuine crimes.
On the other hand, it is no one's wish to see the British system of law courts become an instrument for applying racial policies with which we are all in complete disagreement. That has not happened in the past, and I see no reason why during the standstill there should be any change in the procedure or in the effect of existing laws.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) raised a different question on which I can give some assurance which I hope will be reasonably satisfactory to him. But I would prefer my hon. Friend to put down a Question, when I should be happy to give him a considered answer. I am anxious not to raise a new issue at this stage, which is, of course, outside the scope of the Bill, and if I attempted to discuss the matter I should no doubt be called to order. I hope hon. Members will realise that if this point is not answered in considerable detail, any comment I make would not be useful to those whose careers and positions are affected.
So far as Clause 1 is concerned—and Clause 1 represents the whole Bill—the purpose of it is simply what it says, to keep things as they are while we examine all the issues and consider what changes, if any, need to be made in these various laws. This Bill has no political significance or policy content. It is purely an administrative Measure to win time during which we can consider what should be the policies which should govern these various measures which will be affected by South Africa's leaving the Commonwealth.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Everything that should be said about this Bill has already been said and this is, as we have been reminded, a short Bill. I welcome the Measure and, although it has not been drafted in the form which the Secretary of State would have liked, it will achieve the purpose we have in mind. Hon. Members on this side of the House have moved a number of Amendments affecting legitimate fears on various aspects of the Bill, and I trust that those fears have now been allayed.
Some hon. Members will remember Field Marshal Smuts, and it is a great tragedy for South Africa that he, and many other statesmen like him and who fought as he did, have passed away. We hope that in the years to come other statesmen of his calibre will appear on the scene.
As I have said in our earlier discussions on the Bill, the present Government will not remain in power indefinnitely, and we sincerely hope that the policies which they now follow will also pass away. I hope the Bill, and the negotiations which will follow it when it becomes an Act, will go some way towards South Africa re-entering the Commonwealth. While we all regret the need for this Measure, we realise its importance, and we look forward to the time when the old feeling of friendship and community that has existed for so many years between our two countries will be renewed. If we in this House can do anything to hasten that time, that will be the desire of all hon. Members.
I cannot forget that South Africa is becoming a Republic by a very narrow margin and that 55,000 makes all the difference between that country leaving the Commonwealth and remaining in it, and I am positive that a substantial number of people in South Africa dislike the Union Government's present policy as much as we in this country dislike it. Let us remember that South Africa is

not and can never be regarded as a foreign country, since many of her people are of British birth. Many of them still look to Britain as being their home, and I hope that in the years to come, as circumstances change, South Africa will return to the Commonwealth, for the Commonwealth is the greatest thing the world has ever seen.

Mr. Paul Williams: It would be wrong if the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) were not echoed from this side of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman said, South Africa can never be looked upon as being a foreign country. For 300 years there has been co-operation between our two countries and that cannot be lightly cast aside by what some people think were fallacious acts of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
Many bonds join our countries—bonds of trade, sentiment, investment, defence and a general overlapping of interests, and the majority of hon. Members look forward to the moment when South Africa will re-enter the Commonwealth. In looking forward to that time, we urge the Government to heal any outstanding wounds and to curb any bitterness that may have existed. That is a more positive task than that of setting asunder, which we are doing today.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Braine: We have already had a wide discussion on the Bill, both on Second Reading and at the Committee stage, and I propose to confine myself merely to observing that this is a simple Measure designed for a specific and limited purpose, the form of which follows precedents with which the House is familiar.
The effect of the Bill is simply that certain United Kingdom laws should continue to apply for a maximum of twelve months in relation to South Africa, even after she leaves the Commonwealth. The Government feel that they must have time, not merely to look at the whole body of law affected, but to take stock of the whole position regarding our future relations with the Republic of South Africa. The reason for the Bill was put in a nutshell by my right hon. Friend a moment ago. It is "to win time".
I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will reach their decisions as soon as they possibly can. As has been made clear repeatedly in the course of the debate, it is not just a question of deciding upon consequential alterations to our laws. Some of the other changes which we wish to make will most certainly involve the South African Government and it may well be that when the two Governments have come to agreement legislation will also be necessary in South Africa. These are matters which are not solely under our control and we cannot forecast precisely how long discussions upon them should take.
I must emphasise, too, that we should not ignore the fact that in all this the rights and interests of individuals in this country and in South Africa are liable to be affected. It is surely unthinkable that people in this country or in the High Commission Territories or elsewhere in territories under our jurisdiction should be prejudiced or disadvantaged by our terminating the existing provisions without proper consideration.
My right hon. Friend has taken careful note of the views expressed in the debate, including, if I may delicately venture the observation, some which are only indirectly concerned with the content of the Bill. I should also like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself our appreciation to the House of the constructive and helpful way in which it has facilitated the passage of the Bill. May I say that although this has been described as a standstill Bill that does not mean that we are standing still. Rather, I would

say, as in the words of Sir Francis Bacon in his famous essay on "Despatch":
We do but stay a little, that we may make an end the sooner.
which is, perhaps, the appropriate note upon which to end our discussion.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I shall fulfil entirely the undertaking which I gave the Chairman of our Committee that I would not prolong the proceedings at this stage. The Joint Under-Secretary has said quite rightly that the Bill is to provide for a period of study and negotiation. The Secretary of State will have the responsibility of making those studies and entering those negotiations. I am sure that in doing so he will have an eye to the interests and well-being of the vast majority of South African subjects. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will bear ever in mind what their situation is and what their best interests require.
At the same time, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise during the course of the negotiations not only the patience which we have seen him exhibit at other times but the firmness and the realistic approach to difficult problems of which he is capable. I am sure that he will enter into the negotiations, which we on this side of the House agree are necessary though we are sorry that they are to take quite so long, in the spirit not of the old Commonwealth or of dominion over palm and pine but of the new Commonwealth which he is now helping to create.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 15, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the new Clause (Amendment of s. 3 of Valuation for Rating Act, 1953), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mark Woodnutt".—[Mr. Woodnutt.]
and in respect of the new Clauses (Rating of Gas Boards), (Rating of Electricity Boards) and (Rating of British Transport Commission), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Frederic Harris ".—[Mr. F. Harris.]
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 12, and the two Amendments to Clause 3, page 2, line 34, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Paul Williams",—[Mr. P. Williams.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. I understand, having approached the Table, that two new Clauses which I had put down for consideration on Report have been ruled out of order on the ground that in some circumstances they might lead to a charge on the Revenue. Before you put the main Question on Recommittal, I should like to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you would give some Ruling or guidance on the criteria which apply here, because obviously it has been a difficult case and I have found it a little unpredictable, in the sense of knowing just exactly where the dividing line should come.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry I cannot help the hon. Member. This is Mr. Speaker's decision.

Mr. Bell: I was asking you that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it seems as though many Amendments to the Bill had been considered as possibly raising a charge, although some had not been so considered. In view of that, I wonder whether you would accept a manuscript Amendment to the Recommittal Motion in respect of the two new Clauses that stand in my name.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I would not have the power to do it.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RATING OF INDUSTRIAL AND FREIGHT-TRANSPORT HEREDITAMENTS.)

Mr. Paul Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
Provided that this section shall not apply to shipbuilding yards, that is to say, any premises in which any ships are made, finished or repaired, and premises used primarily for the manufacture of marine main propelling machinery therefor. For the purposes of this section, "ships" shall not include any ship which is of a gross tonnage (ascertained in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1958), of less than eighty tons.
The object of the Amendment is very straightforward, but the aim is to exempt industrial hereditaments in the shipbuilding industry from the abolition of the present 50 per cent. derating which is due to come into effect in about 1963. The exemption would be statutory and there would be no Ministerial discretion. I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the fact that there is a certain degree of rigidity in the Bill which allows no discretion or variation in these matters and which withdraws concessions which have by common usage come to be of considerable value to certain industries such as shipbuilding which from time to time pass through periods of depression, distress or difficulty.
My right hon. Friend must know that over recent months there have been repeated exhortations by the Government about the need to export. The point has also been made repeatedly by Ministers that the shipping and shipbuilding industries need to do more to help themselves. Many of these exhortations are very little more than that, for in the case of the shipbuilding industry—and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is here to sustain me in this matter—large improvements have been and are being made. When we compare


our shipbuilding industry with those abroad we must realise that there is often a penalty for success. The penalty for our success in winning the war has placed our competitors abroad at a tremendous advantage in that in Germany and Japan yards were able to be repaired, rebuilt and sustained out of funds coming largely from North America. Our shipbuilding yards, in order to survive at all, had to develop old property in difficult circumstances in an era when competition was increasing and when the funds available for development were small because of the high-tax economy in which we live.
This has brought us to the present position in which, in general, I think that British shipbuilding is reasonably competitive with the industry abroad. There are difficulties of credit facilities, to which no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) will be paying attention before, during and after the debate. But these is also a particular point in relation to the Bill. The shipping industry is passing through a period, which might well be prolonged, of difficulty because of the intense competition which it meets from abroad. There are difficulties over subsidies, over support of one sort or another and over credit facilities. The revaluation of their property will often be at an enhanced value as a result of the improvement which has been made not only in self-defence and in the search for efficiency but at the exhortation of the Government. This is the moment—this moment of difficulty—which is chosen to end derating, which is one of the main supports and sources of sustenance of the shipping industry. On the one hand, the Government are exhorting industry to be efficient, to cut its costs to the bone and to become as competitive as possible. Yet with another hand the Government, through another Ministry, are slapping on costs as an addition to the basic costs of industrial undertakings.
Hon. Members say that help should be given to the shipbuilding industry. What does it profit to help an industry if at the same time we are removing advantages which it enjoys? It seems to me that the most immediate help which the Government could give to the

shipbuilding industry, which is likely to face a very long period of difficulty and depression, is to concede the principle of the Amendment.
May I give one or two small examples of how the ending of derating will affect shipyards? I do not think that the Committee expects me to name the firm which I have in mind, but I have here a letter from which I will read limited extracts. It is from a shipbuilder who has spent a considerable amount of money in recent years in developing his yard. He writes:
Prior to 1958 the total amount which this firm paid in local rates had a negligible effect on the price of a ship. Following the modernisation of the yard we had a revaluation at a net annual value of £31,000. At present this gives us a rateable value of £15,500 approximately, as 50 per cent. derating applies. In other words, we pay about £14,000 per annum in rates. If one calculates at the rate of four ships a year from this yard, it amounts to £3,500 per ship, which in itself is quite sufficient to cause the losing of an order in the highly competitive situation in which we find ourselves today.
That is the situation before revaluation. Clearly this figure could severely affect the position of the shipbuilding yards. The letter continues:
In the event of the 50 per cent. derating being discontinued, the amount of rates we would have to pay would be very substantially increased, which would again reduce our ability to compete with Continental yards.
This is the moment at which the Government, with one Ministry exhorting shipbuilding to become more efficient, decide to impose, through another Minister, added costs which cannot be passed on to the customer. The consequence of the ending of derating can only be to increase the likelihood of a failure to gain orders abroad or even at home, to increase the chance of unemployment and to add a burden to shipbuilding at a time when it is the least able to bear it.
I could quote further examples of how the ending of derating will hurt and perhaps kill some shipyards, but no doubt my right hon. Friend has seen the statement by the Shipbuilding Conference which was printed in The Times yesterday. One passage of the statement reads:
One firm on the Clyde, after having spent millions on modernisation now faces an increase in rates from £9,000 now to £100,000 in 1963.


That is not solely due to derating; it is the combined effect of revaluation and the ending of derating.
I urge my right hon. Friend to consider this matter most seriously, as no doubt he has done. I regret that a later Amendment which I put down, which was wider than this Amendment, will not be called. It sought to give discretionary power to the Minister to derate depressed industries. I should like to urge that course on the Minister.
We are, however, restricted to this Amendment, and I urge him to realise that there is a contradiction in Government policy. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have urged greater efficiency and the reduction of costs on the shipbuilding industry. No doubt the new Minister charged with the responsibility for shipping and shipbuilding will also urge this, and perhaps Government help will be given to shipbuilding in due course. At a time when the Government are doing this, it is surely nonsensical, and economic folly and madness, to be heaping on costs which cannot be passed on to the consumer. All that will happen is that the consumer will drift away through the fog over the horizon.
I urge my right hon. Friend seriously to consider accepting the Amendment, which may well be the sole sharp and quick way of helping British shipbuilding to survive the immediate problem which it faces.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I should like to associate myself with everything which was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). That of itself is a remarkable thing for me to do, but I agree so wholeheartedly with what he said on this occasion that I do not apologise, as a Scottish Member, for speaking on an English and Welsh Bill. Perhaps we Scottish Members do not do it often enough. I pay rates in both England and Scotland and have some entitlement to speak. Whatever is done in the Bill will be reflected in the rating and valuation position in Scotland. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was good enough to quote an example from the Clyde, and I therefore do not feel out of tune with the Committee in speaking to the Amendment.
I imagine that the first argument which will be advanced against the Amendment is that no one ought to have an exemption. The argument will be that if there is any need to help an industry it ought to be given by some other means and there ought to be equity in treatment of rating and valuation for every industry in the country. No doubt that is an argument which the Minister will use. I retort by saying that we do not do this with agriculture. This principle of equity is not applied to agricultural hereditaments. The argument therefore cannot be advanced on the principle that we apply the same valuation to everybody and that we must help industries in some other way than through rating. This argument is breached immediately by the Government's own admission that we must treat a certain industry differently for rating and valuation.
7.30 p.m.
The reason that consideration was originally given to industry as a whole was the pre-war slump. The plea which has been made today by the shipbuilding industry, which I do not regard as a special pleading for favours in order to make large profits, is that the industry is facing a very difficult situation which is not of its own making and that it needs Government help. That help is not forthcoming. Admittedly, a Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has been set up, which has made some recommendations to put before the Chancellor, and no doubt the Cabinet will come to some conclusion about them some day. The point is that it must be very soon.
I understand that this Bill will apply—and this is what will happen if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not accepted—in 1963. These will be the years of crisis for this industry. Hon. Members need not take my word for that. If they read the Advisory Committee's Report, they will find the precise details of the estimated target for the industry and what can reasonably be expected in the future. This is a Government Committee, not a committee acting on behalf of the industry—not an industrial, vested interest committee.
The Report says that the industry is now producing 1·4 million tons a year, but in the critical years from 1965 to 1970, the figure will fall to an average


of ·9 million tons. It shows further, and this is why I think it is important for a Scottish voice to be heard here, that this will be particularly bad in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I therefore come to the rescue of English hon. Members, following the Biblical principle which the Scots have often taught, that one should always cast one's bread upon the waters, particularly when the tide is coming in. I cast my bread on an English Bill in the hope that it may bring later, on the tide, a Scottish Bill.
This matter is agitating many shipbuilders in Scotland, and they are already asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to give consideration to it. This industry is in this difficult position now, not in ten years' time, and that, I think, is the force of the argument. The Minister might reasonably say that he was quite willing to accept this as a temporary expedient, and as part of the Government assistance, in order to get over this difficult time. He may well say that he is willing to concede this Amendment at this juncture, but that, when the shipbuilding situation has cleared up, he will bring in an amending Bill; in other words, that he is not willing to make the concession permanent. One should admit that that would be a perfectly fair answer, but something has to be done, and the only alternative that I can see is that the Minister will tell us something which we thought we should hear on Monday, and expect to hear very soon. It is that the Government now have a plan for the shipbuilding industry and that they have adopted various suggestions in the Departmental Committee's Report to such a degree that this kind of exemption from derating is now unnecessary.
I cannot see any other way of arguing that, and I look forward to hearing the usually agile Minister of Housing and Local Government giving us the answers to these questions. He is not, strictly speaking, in the local government field tonight, because he is intervening in the industrial future of a very great industry, a very proud industry, which has done a very great deal for this country. Apart from the views of those hon. Members who represent shipbuilding constituencies, there are many hon. Members who are proud of the achievements

of the shipbuilding industry. This country cannot afford to harm this industry.
This is not a dying industry but an industry in a crisis, and it is up to this Committee to try its best to help it. That is why I hope that the Minister will look upon this Amendment favourably, and not as special pleading for vested interests, with hon. Members arguing with the reflexes of Pavlov's dog. We are genuinely arguing a national cause.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I want to add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Paul Williams) has said. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that the shipbuilding industry has a very difficult time ahead. The tramp section, the coastal section and the tanker section of the shipping industry are extremely depressed, and, from all I know of it, I do not think the liner section is a great deal better. Thinking only in terms of orders which may come from British shipowners, the outlook for the shipbuilder is extremely black.
I appreciate, of course, as I think every hon. Member of the Committee appreciates, the great difficulty of giving exceptional treatment to one industry. It may be not too difficult to find other industries, though perhaps not of equal importance to the shipbuilding industry, which are equally depressed or have an equally depressing outlook, and it may make a hole in the purpose of the Bill we are considering if exceptional treatment is meted out to shipbuilders. There is another fear, which I think is relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, which I should like to express, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) is now sitting in his newly-won position on the Front Bench, and I add my congratulations to him on his new office.
It is that, in an effort to help the British shipbuilder, and perhaps even the British shipowner, the Government may be persuaded that it would be a good thing to help British owners to scrap existing vessels and to build new ones. I very much hope that the Government will not proceed in accordance with that suggestion. If that process were to be continued—and it has been in operation


in the past—the logical conclusion would be to scrap all British merchant ships for the common benefit of the shipowners of all nations other than British owners.
The original suggestion made some years ago was to scrap two and to build one. It is nearly as bad to scrap one and to build one, but it is much better to scrap one and to build twenty, or, indeed, to scrap none at all. I appreciate the difficulty of the Government in regard to accepting this Amendment, but the situation in which the shipbuilding industry is now is, in my view, so difficult that it deserves careful consideration by the Government.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I cannot claim to speak with a constituency interest in this matter, but I believe, as one interested in the shipbuilding industry, that there is a danger that the provisions of this Bill will fall particularly harshly upon it. For that reason, I ask my right hon. Friend to give special consideration to the Amendment.
We all know that the industry is going through a very difficult time. There was a time when I wore out a good deal of shoe leather going round the various shipbuilding yards of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. My chief recollection of those visits relates to how much shoe leather I did wear out, what a long way round it was and how large, of necessity, these establishments are. I am not aware of the exact way in which rates will be fixed, but I imagine that the size of the yards will cause them to attract a very much higher share of rates than would otherwise be the case. Indeed, although these yards are large, they have a disadvantage which many of our foreign competitors have not, in that they were laid down many years ago. There is now only one major yard which has been laid down since the First World War, whereas our competitors in Japan and Germany have been able to rebuild their yards from scratch, on the basis of a much more economic use of land. Consequently, the very old-fashioned layout of these yards will, at the same time, attract a higher amount of rates to them.
There is the further point that in modern methods of construction and prefabrication, it has been found necessary

to abandon a number of the old slipways, and not use all of them. Here again, rates will be attracted to certain yards which are not now fully economic or fully in use. I hope that my right hon. Friend wil realise this difficultyl. It is difficult to make special pleading for any particular industry, because, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) pointed out, the order books are getting low, and these additional rates will come into effect in 1963, the very year in which the orders on the books will be running out. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind these considerations of general national policy when addressing himself to the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to add my support to this Amendment which has been so fully and ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). I do not want to go over the various points he made, but I shall follow a line of my own. I think it most unfortunate that we should be discussing this Rating and Valuation Bill without having had a proper and full discussion of the plight of the British shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry.
We are always looking at problems out of their general plan and context. As has been admirably said by some of my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), it is very difficult for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to have to deal with this problem when we have not discussed the whole issue. Except for the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, we have not heard of the proposals the Government have in mind to deal with the problems of shipbuilding and ship-repairing.
Various comments have been made by people connected with the shipbuilding industry, and I want to add one more. The more we build up the case, even if we cannot get any promise from my right hon. Friend, the better it should be. I add my congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) on his new appointment. I hope he will be able to put forward to the various departments concerned the anxieties felt by those of us representing areas connected with shipbuilding and ship-repairing.
I want to express myself forcefully. It is most unfortunate that we should have to deal with this matter only a weekend and a couple of days since my hon. and gallant Friend was appointed. I should have felt much happier if he had had more time in his office. I have great faith in him and take much pleasure in thinking of him arguing with the Minister of Transport. I think I know who would come out on top. It is regrettable that he has so recently come to the Department that he has not had time to see the various Ministers. I wonder whether he has been able even to have a discussion with my right hon. Friend on this important Amendment.
I want to add this comment from an important firm on the Tyne about its difficulty in obtaining new shipbuilding orders. It is the well known firm of John Readhead & Sons. The chairman and managing director has stated that his firm has been eliminating all profit from its tenders for ships in an effort to get jobs for employees. The chairman and managing director, Mr. Harold Towers, said:
In fact, we have been quoting below out-cost.
He said that after the launch from the yard of the 12,800 tons deadweight cargo liner "Gorjistan" for the Strick Line, London. He went on to say:
We have been trying desperately to find new work for delivery in 1962 and 1963. So far, with the exception of one ship, we have been unsuccessful and indeed unfortunate. Continuity of employment, we know, is vital and for this reason alone, and particularly when we have so many loyal employees, we will go on with our earnest endeavours to secure more work.
That reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, that during the period in which shipbuilding yards have been fully employed they have had the benefit of derating. Just when they are going into a very difficult period they have to face this new proposal.
7.45 p.m.
I am not blaming my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He has to look at the whole proposition from the point of view of rating and valuation. My complaint against the Government is that there are so many Ministers concerned with the

problems of shipbuilding, ship-repairing and shipping that we never get a coordinated policy. We move from one situation to another and there are relatively few hon. Members who have these interests in mind or who can speak for these interests. We argue and talk and have reports about these problems. I wonder whether all the reports which have been issued are to be of any use if we do not have a statement on policy before we part with this Bill. It is deplorable that Her Majesty's Government should allow this great industry to be confronted with the implications of this Bill without our having had an opportunity of discussing the situation the industry faces.
The Minister of Transport has had many reports. He flits from flower to flower, or twig to twig, but we can never pin him down. For a very long time we have been asking for someone to be appointed to deal with these problems because we felt that the Minister of Transport was over-loaded. Then, much to our pleasure, we had the appointment of my hon. and gallant Friend. I think he ought to have been appointed a Minister of State. Then he would have been in a senior position. He has not had time to discuss the details and implications of this Bill. I doubt whether he has had an opportunity of discussing problems of shipbuilders with the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, the Shipbuilding Conference, the trade unions and the industry. He may have had a word in the privacy of the Ministerial room with my right hon. Friend, but he has not had an opportunity of getting the problem put before the Cabinet. This is a Cabinet problem, because it is all part of the great difficulty in which the industry finds itself.
I am not going into the detail, which has been dealt with admirably already. I wish to put on record that I do not think this industry should have to meet increased costs in an area when we are entering into the greatest competition the country has known for many years. I do not know what the Minister of Housing and Local Government can suggest. As the hon. Member for Greenock said, this Bill does not apply to agriculture. But, of course, we all know that there are far too many hon. Members representing agricultural interests in this House.

Mr. P. Williams: Careful. My hon. Friend will lose some of our support.

Dame Irene Ward: I have great faith in Conservative Members when they know the problems involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) represents an agricultural area and in his Ministerial capacity learned something about shipbuilding and repairing. Therefore, when he comes to our support we have added force to the case we are putting to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Government action depends on how many supporters there are for a case. I believe it is because nothing has been done about agriculture in this Bill that this blow has been aimed at shipbuilding and repairing.
I say nothing more about that matter, and I expect that everybody will be extremely relieved. I hope that by tomorrow, when we ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate on shipbuilding and repairing—which would also bring into line the problem of this aspect of the industry—my hon. Friend the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will have had a chance of seeing the Leader of the House and explaining to him how we feel about this matter, so that we can then get on with trying to look at this industry in a wide picture and not just through one small aspect which it is difficult to know how to deal with.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: Hon. Members have been commendably brief in their remarks, and I will follow their example. There is not much that I can add to the admirable speech with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) moved his Amendment. On the other hand, it is right that somebody should speak for Merseyside—the Cheshire side. The other day I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, enclosing a letter from the head of our great shipyard which has built some of the finest British ships. It is true, as other hon. Members have said, that this industry is going through a difficult time for a variety of reasons, one of them being the competition from abroad which is artifically subsidised, as we heard in last Monday's debate.
While it may be true that there may be other ways in which, to some extent, this great industry can be helped, and that there are ways in which it can and should help itself, we should not, in this time of great difficulty, needlessly make things more complicated and difficult for it. At a time when it must face the new valuations and the re-rating of industry, it is at the receiving end of a serious double-barrelled shot.
I fully recognise my right hon Friend's difficulties. I hope that he will feel able to look very closely at what is an extremely grave problem, and will, if he can, in consultation with the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport—whose appointment I also welcome wholeheartedly—try to do something to alleviate the quite serious blow in this Bill at one of our greatest industries.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I will be very brief. I have the greatest sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friends, particularly as I have a large shipbuilding yard in my constituency, which is going through precisely the same difficulties as the yards in their constituencies.
Nevertheless, I do not think that the method proposed in this Amendment is the way in which the industry should be helped. I have two main reasons for that view. First, we are trying to bring all rateable values on to a current basis, and if we made an exception of the shipbuilding industry it would mean that domestic ratepayers in these areas would bear a higher share of the rate burden than ratepayers in other areas. That would not be right. It would mean that the industry would be subsidised by ratepayers in certain areas.

Mr. P. Williams: Let us be clear about the use of words. The removal of a financial burden cannot possibly be interpreted as a subsidy.

Mr. Woodnutt: In this case, it can, because it would mean that domestic ratepayers in shipbuilding areas would be paying more rates than they would have been had things been left as they are now in the Bill.
My second reason may take away some of the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). When this Bill becomes law,


I do not think that it will mean that industry will pay more in rates than it is paying now, because the increase in the assessments on domestic properties is likely to be trebled, the increase on commercial properties will be 25 per cent. or more, and the increase on assessments for industry will be doubled. That means—according to calculations I and several other people have made—that, because of the different weighting of these different types of rateable properties, it is more likely than not that the rates actually payable by industry will remain the same.
I do not think, therefore, that the shipbuilding industry is correct in expecting that it will have to pay more rates. It is true that its assessments will go up, but the total rates that it will pay will probably remain approximately the same as now.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) moved his Amendment in a vigorous and eloquent speech, in which he told us something of the background of the problems of the shipbuilding industry. It has been followed by a series of pungent, short and effective speeches from a number of my hon. Friends, and from the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who already knows that this Bill does not deal with Scotland so that I cannot go into detail about the position on the Clyde.
All my hon. Friends recognised, by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, that the special interest of this industry in rating is by no means under-estimated. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that he could not have had much time yet in which to master the problems of the industry. I can assure her that he has had plenty of time to talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and to me about this industry's rating problems.
I shall first deal with the Amendment in its technical form. I can thus clear it out of the way and then get on with

the substance of the case. Technically, the Amendment is faulty because it does not remove the repeal by the Fifth Schedule of this Bill of Section 68 of the 1929 Act, which caused the derating of industry. The proviso, therefore, even if the Amendment were passed, would have no effect. Of course, if the Amendment were accepted it could be accepted in principle and revised in detail.
The purpose of the Amendment is that the shipbuilding industry should benefit by derating by 50 per cent. in 1963 and after.
8.0 p.m.
The speeches made upon the Amendment have been based on a view of what the Bill is doing which I hope to be able to persuade all hon. Members is a misapprehension. All those who have spoken, except for my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), spoke of the shipbuilding industry—and, indeed, all industry—as being likely to suffer a serious increase in rate burden as a result of the Bill. I must try to explain to them that this is not so. Until we know much more about the shift of the rate burden between the different classes of ratepayer we cannot tell what the general result of the Bill will be in detail, but we can tell something about the substance.
At the moment, the domestic ratepayer, who contributes about 48 per cent. of the total rates paid, is valued upon a 1939 basis. By previous legislation, he will be valued at current value after 1963, but because the impact of a change of valuation of 24 years—from 1939 to 1963—might otherwise be unduly hard on him, the Bill contains certain alleviating measures, especially a power in my right hon. Friend to derate domestic rates between 1963 and 1968. So much for the domestic ratepayer. For him there will be a 24-year jump in valuation, mitigated only by the derating power in the hands of my right hon. Friend. He bears 48 per cent. of the rate burden at the moment.
A further 41 per cent. of that burden is borne by commercial and other ratepayers—in respect of shops, offices, hotels, etc.—who are assessed on 1956 values and who, in 1963, will fall to be assessed on 1963 values. They will, therefore, suffer a jump in valuation of seven years, as compared with the jump


of 24 years in respect of domestic householders. But under the 1957 Act the commercial ratepayers get the benefit of a 20 per cent. derating, which, also under that Act, ends in 1963.
I now come to the last broad class of ratepayer, namely, industry, which at the moment bears 11 per cent. of the rate burden, valued on 1956 values—which will jump to 1963 values in 1963—and which receives the benefit of a 50 per cent. derating, that benefit being ended by Clause 1, which the Amendment seeks to alter.
It is only when one has combined all the separate threads that one can possibly begin to estimate what will be the Bill's result in 1963 in respect of any class of ratepayer. In his Second Reading speech my right hon. Friend sought to estimate what the results would be. At that time he estimated that if industry were not rerated the result of all the other factors would be that industry's share of the rate burden in 1963 would be halved, because of the rise in valuation of domestic, commercial and other properties, whose share of the rate burden is 89 per cent. as compared with only 11 per cent. for industry. But after taking into account the rerating of industry, that is, the removal of the 50 per cent. derating the broad result would be that industry would continue to bear, after 1963, about the same share of the rate burden as it does at present.
There are a number of unknown factors that make this estimate a very rough one. One is the extent to which the values of industrial property have altered since 1956. But there will have to be some very sharp increases in the rateable values of the yards—and this at a time when everybody knows that shipbuilders are taking a gloomy view of their prospects—to justify anything like the pessimistic forecasts of the effect of revaluation.
My right hon. Friend is advised that if it is established that there is a recession in the shipbuilding industry, or in any part of it, such as to affect the amount which may reasonably be expected to be secured for the hereditaments which it occupies, that is taken into account in the valuation of those hereditaments. There are other unknown factors, such as the movement in the rental values of other classes of property, and the extent to which houses are to be derated.
Despite these unknowns, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which shipbuilders' rates will increase as much as they fear. A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the penalty—as they regard it—of increased rates on improvements carried out by shipyards. It is true that to the extent that plant of shipyards is rateable—and by no means all such plant is rateable—the rateable value will rise, but that is the whole basis of our rating system, and there is a compensating offset, because my right hon. Friend is advised that if, through the improvement of their equipment, smaller slipways and dry docks become redundant, the shipyard as a whole may be given, on that account, and for that part of its equipment, smaller or even nil values. All this has to be taken into account.
I repeat that the main purpose of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight has explained and other hon. Members have acknowledged, is to return to the principle of basing rates on full current values, mitigated only by the derating power to ease the impact on the householder. No one likes paying rates, but it is being a little illogical to represent them, as several of my hon. Friends have, as being the last straw on the back of the shipyards. Shipbuilders have to make use of all sorts of materials and services, and I do not expect that they receive those services and materials free, or even at cut rates, just because they are temporarily in distress. Why, therefore, should they expect to receive local government services at cut rates?
What my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight said is true; if industry, including the shipyards, is not rerated in 1963, the burden on householders and commerce will be to that extent increased. If, instead of industry as a whole, only the shipbuilding yards are allowed to preserve their present derating, the rest of industry will share with householders and commerce the co-relative increase in the rate burden. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that whereas, on the whole, industry and commerce set their rates off against tax, the householder, who bears by far the highest share of any class of ratepayers, has to pay his rates out of taxed income. It is not for me to say whether


the shipbuilding industry should seek help from the Government, but I must assert that the view of my right hon. Friend and the Government is that rate relief is not a desirable way in which an industry in distress should be helped.
I am also confident that when 1963 comes the gloomy forecasts of a much increased share of the rate burden falling either on industry as a whole or on the shipbuilding industry in particular will be disproved. My right hon. Friend accepts that any increase in rates is unwelcome, but he regrets that he can recommend the Committee neither to abandon the rerating of industry nor to discriminate, for rating purposes, between one industry and another.

Mr. J. T. Price: I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a moment, in order to add a footnote to certain observations that have just been addressed to the Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said quite logically—and having been a member of the Standing Committee I understand the position—that, even when the 100 per cent. liability for rates was attached to the industries concerned, in the final analysis, when all the arithmetic had been done in the town hall and elsewhere, they may find that they would not have to pay in rates a sum very different from that which they were paying before the change was made.
If that be true, the corollary to that revelation, if I may so call it, is that if the addition of a 50 per cent. rate liability will not mean a greater cash liability to industry, obviously the small owner-occupiers of domestic hereditaments will be faced with an increased rate to compensate for the 50 per cent. which has not been collected from industry.
I am not making these remarks with the intention of being hostile to the claims which have been made by hon. Members on both sides on behalf of an industry which is in a special difficulty, but I share the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that, if there is to be some special relief, this is not the way to give it because it can be given only by placing on domestic householders—and particularly on the owner-occupier who has bought his house with the help of a mortgage—an increased

rate liability of 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. This increase could not be cushioned by the special powers which the Minister is taking to himself.
These powers have nothing to do with the merits of the case. This cushion which the Minister is seeking to include in the Bill is not being provided for the economic reasons which have been stated. It is purely a political cushion to enable the Government to get over the next election, because, when the full impact of revaluation on the 1963 basis is realised by the ordinary householders, there will be such an outcry that even this Government will not be able to stand it.
I have no desire to be called to order by the Chair. I trust, Sir Samuel, that you will be tolerant. I was perhaps straying from the path of virtue, and hon. Members know that I would not wilfully do that. Nevertheless, these are cogent considerations. If I am to be asked to pass judgment and perhaps to vote on a proposition which gives a special concession to a particular industry, I want to know who will pay for that concession. Surely it is cogent to point out that if this concession is given it will have to be paid for by the domestic householder, the shopkeeper, and people on small fixed incomes.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. May I pose a question about the domestic householder? If families were unemployed because there were no shipyards to employ them, their position would be worse than if we gave the concession to the shipyards and kept them in employment.

Mr. Price: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. All those who think responsibly about the duty they have undertaken are concerned to ensure that nothing they do artificially creates unemployment or makes industry less able to compete in the markets of the world, but it has been admitted by leading spokesmen of the Government that industrial derating can no longer be justified and that many of the big industries have had the advantage of a 50 per cent. rate relief for too long. After the war there were periods when the shipbuilding industry became active


and revved itself up and did a tremendous amount of work which we all admired. At that time the industry received concessions in rates which it did not need. It is only since the industry has run into more difficult times that these arguments have been put forward.
Subject to the reservations I have made, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. If this special relief is to be given to the shipbuilding industry, it must not be at the expense of the domestic householder and the occupier of other premises. The people in Sunderland, Newcastle and Merseyside must not be penalised to help the shipbuilding industry. That would not be right. Subject to that, I have a good deal of good will for the purpose behind the Amendment, but this is not the way to do it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Williams: I will not detain the Committee much longer. I believe that we have received just about the answer we expected. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) put her finger on one of the most important problems in relation to the shipbuilding industry. Over the years the Government have always faced the problem piecemeal. Technocratic answers which may be logical and correct on the Bill, and which may be satisfactory in one sense, leave us with the running sore of the problem in the shipbuilding industry.
My hon. Friend said that derating was no longer the appropriate way to deal with this. It would be more satisfactory if the Government could tell us what is the suitable method of dealing with this problem. One is fobbed off with piecemeal legislation such as the Bill we are considering. This type of legislation permanently harms the shipbuilding industry and does nothing to remedy its problems.
The Minister said that the effect of revaluation on the domestic rate was unknown. How, then, can he say with confidence that this will not be the sort of thing which will savage the shipbuilding industry in 1963? If revaluation adds no burden, surely the ending of derating adds a burden? This must add to the sum total of rates paid by the yards.
This piecemeal facing of the problem of the shipbuilding industry leaves me, and I think most of my hon. Friends who are interested in the Amendment, profoundly disturbed about the future. We are not happy about the Government's approach, and because of that I cannot withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWER TO REDUCE RATEABLE VALUE OF DWELLING-HOUSES, ETC., FOR PURPOSES OF FIRST FUTURE LISTS).

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(3) (a) The Minister shall so exercise his powers under this section that the domestic share of rateable value in England and Wales shall not exceed six-fifths of the present domestic share in England and Wales and that the domestic share of rateable value in any area shall not exceed five-fourths of the present domestic share in that area;
(b) in this subsection "area" means an administrative county or county borough; the expression "domestic share of rateable value" means a fraction, of which the numerator is the rateable value of all such hereditaments as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and the denominator is the sum of the rateable value of all hereditaments and of the values of property on which a contribution is paid in lieu of rates; and the expression "present domestic share" means the domestic share of rateable value in accordance with the valuation lists in force on the rate of the passing of this Act.
We have long pressed for the complete rating of industry as a whole and we welcome the Clause. Indeed, we regard it as overdue, but it raises questions as between industry on the one hand and the grouping of ratepayers, which includes shops and offices, on the other hand, and lastly the domestic ratepayer.
In replying to the debate on the last Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the present position. I do not want to repeat what he said, but I must point out that the increase is estimated by the right hon. Gentleman not to increase industry's share of the burden. I agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this. There is bound to be when one is dealing with increases in values even over a period of six years between 1957 and 1963. It will be a rather shorter period, actually, since the lists will be prepared before them.
Subject to that, however, industry will not have to bear a larger share of the burden. Shops and offices, too, will be dealt with in the light of the rise in values since 1957; accordingly, from that point of view they will, no doubt, have some increase but not as much as those who, like domestic householders, will be dealt with on the basis of the difference between before the war and now. For shops it counterbalances that to some extent. The increase which they will have to bear is merely the removal of the 20 per cent. concession given to them a few years ago as against the removal of the 50 per cent. concession which industry has had for some time.
I think it is, therefore, fair to say that shops and offices will have to bear rather more of the total rateable value, but it is also fair to say that the people who will have to bear the brunt and full weight of the burden, the "severe jolt" as the right hon. Gentleman twice described it on Second Reading, will be the domestic householders. It is fair to add to that, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the last debate, that domestic householders cannot deduct the rates they pay from business expenses as both industry and shops are entitled to do. There is no doubt, therefore, that on the basis of the law as it is at present, and including for the purposes of this discussion the Clause to which the Committee has just agreed, the person who will have incomparably the heaviest share of the burden will be the domestic householder.
No Government other than a Government composed of insensitive lunatics could possibly let that position remain, and even the present Government have found it necessary to provide in Clause 2 what the right hon. Gentleman calls a "cushion". I think that his picture is of the domestic householder being let down with a bump and he himself providing the "cushion" to make the fall rather easier.
We have had objections to this way of doing it, and one of our main objections is that the "cushion" is left entirely at the right hon. Gentleman's discretion. He is allowed to free domestic householders, either in the country as a whole or in parts of the country to different degrees, from whatever he thinks fit to relieve them in connection with the rate burden.

He may relieve the domestic householder of 90 per cent. of it or of 10 or 20 per cent. of it. We do not know. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to do all that. The only indication that we have had about what the Minister proposes to do in the matter was given to us, curiously enough, not by the right hon. Gentleman but by the Parliamentary Secretary, who purported to quote what I think, in fact, his right hon. Friend had never said. Still, we can presume, I suppose, that they both got it out of the same notes, and, therefore, what is good enough for one is good enough for the other.
In column 508 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th November, 1960, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
My right hon. Friend said that the Government would not find it tolerable to allow an increase in the share of the rates falling on the householders because of the revaluation of the order of one-third. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c.508.]
That was promptly met by a comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who said that he was never quite sure what the phrase "of the order of" will mean when it comes to the point, a comment with which I agree. However, substantially we were told that the kind of increase which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was to allow up to one-third of the total as against the domestic householder.
What always happens in these cases happened today. We have seen a very good instance of it. Industry, which is entitled to set off its rate burden against its tax burden, complains about the incidence of rates, but when one comes to look at it one finds that rates are a far smaller share of the turnover or, indeed, the profits of industry than they are in relation to the small domestic householder. I suggest that from the point of view of the small domestic householder rates are a very hard tax indeed. They bear on him more heavily than they do on the large householder, and they bear on both of them more heavily than they do on industry or offices. The result is the curious one that when the rates come to be paid the offices of the Prudential or one of the large joint stock banks will get off better from this change, just


as the business of I.C.I. or Unilever will get off better than the ordinary householder, and particularly the small householder.
What may be said against that is, "No doubt rates are from many points of view objectionable, but can you suggest a better alternative?" I will not go into that at any length on this Amendment, but it is clear that that comment may be made. I think that it is sufficient if on this Amendment I remind the Committee that the Opposition divided on Second Reading on a reasoned Amendment which mentioned the inequitable burden on domestic ratepayers—which is exactly what I have been talking about—and declined to proceed further until a full inquiry had been made into the financial relationship between central and local government under modern conditions.
On this Amendment I cannot develop that, but I can put it more shortly. If the inevitable result of the Government's proposal is that the domestic householder has to bear a jolt of this character subject only to a "cushion" the softness and the efficiency of which depend entirely on the judgment of the Minister who is responsible for the Rent Act, then the rating change is not particularly good. I must rub this in a little further yet. What is happening to the domestic householder is partly a matter of the form that the relief takes in this Bill and partly a matter of what has been going on in the way of house values and the rates upon which these rating values are based. Of course, one can take only—as the right hon. Gentleman has told us again and again, usually when asking for a postponement of the valuation lists—the rents of uncontrolled and, in that sense, free houses. If anybody looks round London today, they will find that there has been, exactly as one would expect, a very sharp rise indeed in rents, purchase prices and, therefore, the prospective rateable values of the houses. The reason is that, to start with, the whole market has been allowed to slip upwards partly because of the removal of rent control and partly because of the provisions about compensation in full to local authorities—I have no objection to that—not being accompanied by any provision for ensuring that local authorities get betterment.
8.30 p.m.
The result is that under this Government land and, with it, houses have gone up and up in value, particularly in the Metropolis and in the other large towns. That has been added to by a number of other factors all connected with Government policy. One, for instance, is that instead of providing enough houses through council building to make good the real shortage that there is in these large towns, the Government have succeeded in roughly halving the rate of building council houses in the last five or six years and have encouraged the building of houses for sale and, to a very limited extent, indeed, for letting by private enterprise.
Since the rents so obtained depend very largely on the rates of interest current at the time, both the housing policy of the Government and the financial policy of higher rates of interest have all played their part in pushing up the value of houses. All this will come back on the domestic ratepayer when he is called upon to bear the jolt of the change between pre-war and present-day conditions.
It is, of course, in recognition of that being a certainty, although the amount of it may not be a certainty, that the Government have felt bound to introduce Clause 2. But I repeat that the Government have left it to the Minister who is personally responsible as a Minister for a good many of these acts of policy. He forms part of the Government which bears a very grave responsibility for the whole picture, as it now affects the domestic ratepayer. They have, in short, queered the pitch for him concerning rating assessments.
In these circumstances, we on this side of the Committee are not prepared to leave this matter entirely to the arbitrary descretion—for it is uncontrolled except by an affirmative Resolution being required—of the right hon. Gentleman. I say "arbitrary" because we can be realists about affirmative Resolutions. They are, no doubt, a very good way of making clear what the Government propose, but the Government would resign if they were defeated on an affirmative Resolution. The Whips are on and there is no Amendment possible. In fact and in practice, whatever the constitutional theory may be, the extent and efficacy of it will depend entirely on the right


hon. Gentleman's judgment of the position.
The object of the Amendment is to give the domestic ratepayers a limit, and the limit must be given by limiting their share of the total rate burden. I say that because if we were merely engaged in limiting the amount, a county borough, for instance, could double the rateable value over a given area, and if it did not want any more money for public purposes it could then halve the poundage, and the result would be the same.
When we come to consider shares this is another matter. If we look at the way the shares have worked we see yet another reason why the domestic ratepayer needs protection. Let us compare two areas, one consisting almost entirely of domestic premises, a large residential town which probably returns a Tory Member, the other a town where many people are living because their work is there and where also there is a considerable number of factories, offices and the like.
In the former town the Bill will not make much difference. The domestic ratepayer's share has always been so large, because there are no factories and few shops, that it makes little odds. The same applies in the residential suburbs. In the other place the full effect of the Bill will be that, though industry will bear a little more and though, no doubt, shops and offices will have some increase, the domestic ratepayer will take the really severe jolt, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it.
In the circumstances, it is perfectly clear that those who are concerned with our industrial constituencies are particularly anxious to see that the domestic ratepayer there is not hard hit by the change while the domestic ratepayer in Bournemouth or some other happy and wealthy centre gets off with little or no increase. The operation of the Bill in that respect will be unfair. Again, it is all a matter of the right hon. Gentleman's discretion. He may make distinctions between one area and another. He is not bound to make any, and he is not restricted in the distinctions he makes.
In the circumstances, we say that to increase the domestic householder's share by one-fifth is ample at the moment. We do not say that that should be done—quite the opposite—but

we say that that is the limit of what should be done. The domestic ratepayer ought not to be obliged to carry any greater share of the burden than that. We say, too, that as regard particular areas where there may have to be some provision and a larger increase might otherwise be involved, there ought not to be more than a one-quarter increase.
What I have just said is the purport of paragraph (a) of the new subsection which we desire to insert, that is to say, that the domestic share of rateable value in the country as a whole is not to exceed six-fifths of the present domestic share, and that the domestic share in any area is not to exceed five-fourths.
The following paragraph merely defines the words used. It defines particularly the
domestice share of rateable value
and it defines it in the form of a fraction. It looks fiercer than it is. I think we all know what is intended by the expression "domestic share of rate burden". On 29th November, in a Written Answer, the right hon. Gentleman set out in column 29 and 30 of the OFFICIAL REPORT the most recent figures showing how rateable value is divided. One finds that dwellings will account for just about 47½ per cent. of the amount expected to be receive in rates in the year 1960–61. Adding one-fifth to that, householders would then carry rather more than half the total burden.
Rates are a bad tax, for the reasons I have indicated. They are a regressive tax. They come down on the small householder, the small person of fixed income of whom we hear sometimes from hon. Members opposite. Those are the people who will suffer. In view of what has happened during recent years about housing, house values and land values, is it right in a Bill of this kind to leave the protection of the domestic householder entirely to Ministerial discretion? If that is all that the Government can do, then there must be something wrong either, as I believe, with the whole system—I think that it needs examining—or with the steps which are being taken.
The Minister goes round the country saying that it is not he who has made things difficult for the domestic ratepayer. He is St. George in shining


armour come to rescue him from the dragon of existing legislation. Technically, he is perfectly right. Practically, he is talking complete nonsense, if he will excuse my saying so, because no Government in their senses could possibly have left the present position without trying to give some protection to the domestic householder. All that we are saying is that that protection, up to the amounts that we suggest, should be certain and that, if a discretion is the only way of dealing with the matter, then it must be exercised in such a way that it will afford some real assistance.
I ask hon. Members to remember one thing. Their constituents, like mine, probably come to see them from time to time to grumble about a rating assessment or the rates which they are paying. How many of those constituents really know that they are being assessed on a hypothetical 1939 value? I occasionally ask them. My experience is that they never know. The result of the Bill will be that the jolt to them will be exceptionally severe. I agree that there is a certain logical consistency in that.
People will say, "It is the council which has done it again". In Measure after Measure the right hon. Gentleman has so managed things—whether on purpose or by happy accident I cannot say—that the councils are blamed for Government policy. It is said that there are not enough council houses and that the rents are too high. But what about the rate of interest which the councils have to pay? The Government will be responsible if they do not ensure in this Measure that the domestic householder gets at least a modicum of protection.
The local councils, not the Government, will be blamed, particularly in areas where the severe jolt will be felt most acutely, namely, in industrial areas which have Labour-controlled councils and which are represented by my hon. Friends. It is not right that that should be so. If this is all that the Government can do, in spite of all the criticisms that I have made, then they should at least ensure that the protection is not purely discretionary but that there is, as we propose, a reasonable minimum of security.

Mr. Donald Wade: The Minister is asking for a very wide discretion. While I have no doubt that it is his intention and desire to exercise

this discretion wisely and properly, I think that it is our duty to examine it with some care.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have said on more than one occasion that the Government intend that the principle of current values shall underlie the rating system in future. I have some doubt as to whether it will work out in that way. We have had various calculations about what the effect would be on domestic householders if there were no derating. I believe that it has been suggested that the liability of the domestic ratepayer would be trebled. For instance, if a local authority's expenditure remained unchanged, the sum of £25 which a ratepayer was paying would rise to £75, which is a very substantial increase.

Mr. Mitchison: That was the suggestion of The Times.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Wade: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, the Minister is asking for power to make regulations at his discretion for a period of five years in order to defer the jolt—and it will obviously be a substantial and serious jolt for the domestic ratepayer.
I understand that it is the intention of the Government to limit this increased burden falling upon the domestic householder to 30 per cent. or so. In that event, it seems to follow that at the end of the five-year period the domestic householder is liable to be faced with a substantial increase. As we approach the end of the five-year period, there will be increasing pressure for a further similar Order. We shall be told that the precedent has been established—at least one cannot deny that a precedent is being established—by the Clause giving the Minister power to deal with the particular position of the domestic householder by means of an Order.
I recognise that anybody criticising this is liable to be asked what one would do. I have proposed that there should be a pilot survey and valuation based upon site value rating in order to compare it with the existing method of arriving at liability to rates. Obviously, it would be out of order to pursue that. I merely say in passing that if that comparison were made, one interesting conclusion


that would follow is that the average rate liability of domestic householders would be considerably less. Figures from other countries bear that out.
That would be the case without any derating regulation. It would be a permanent solution, and that is one of the merits. However, I am obviously not able to pursue that. I merely say that I am in favour of some radical reform of a long-term nature which would overcome the necessity or the case for dealing with this kind of problem by means of Orders and regulations. In the meantime, however, the House of Commons is faced with this dilemma. The Minister obviously does not wish to have his hands tied. I imagine that that is what he will say. On the other hand, the House of Commons has a duty to retain the right to decide so far as possible within its own hands. We have a duty to lay down a maximum to enable the House to retain that degree of control.
I believe that when the application of the principle of current values is fully understood there will be a great outcry. It may be that this outcry will be postponed for the period of five years. That rather depends upon the extent of the derating, but it is only postponing the evil day. I envisage a long vista of Orders and regulations following from the precedent that is now being set.
I recognise that we are in a difficulty. I do not want to damn the Amendment with faint praise. I consider it the best solution that could be put forward. I advocate it, however, primarily because it is a way of retaining within the hands of the House of Commons some control over the extent of the derating that is made necessary by Government legislation. For those reasons, I feel bound to support the Amendment.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): In all our previous proceedings on this Bill the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has never spoken of me so generously as to liken me to St. George. I am grateful, and I shall refrain from making any further identification of himself. Even so, I recognise that he is in line with the Government in wishing that any additional burden which may fall on householders by the revaluation

in 1963 shall not be of so heavy a character as to be unbearable. We are at one on that. The only question is, what is the right method by which to proceed?
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, very fairly, that this is a difficult matter. He likes the general idea of the Amendment, I fancy, but at the same time he recognises that it is not an ideal way of proceeding and that it would in itself cause certain difficulties.
I said on behalf of the Government at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Government would regard an overall 33 per cent. increase in the share to be borne by the householder of the total rate burden as unacceptable. I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman in this Amendment has kept his figures somewhat below that.
If the Amendment were accepted certain consequences would flow. It would cut across a suggestion which I made, and which I thought received a good deal of support and good will in the Standing Committee, that we should try to avoid having a great many different percentages of derating in the different counties and county boroughs. This Amendment provides, if I understand it aright, that in the case of no county or county borough shall the domestic share rise by more than 25 per cent.
If the valuation figures, when we see them in draft, indicate a wide variety of increases in the domestic share in the many different counties and county boroughs, it may be necessary to invoke the Order-making power so as to impose a wide variety of different percentages of derating on to the different counties and county boroughs in order to bring them all within the 25 per cent. I think I should carry most hon. Members with me if I were to hope that it may not be necessary to fix different percentages of derating for different areas. The less we find that that is necessary the better. This Amendment, though, is really rigid, and it would mean that even if it were going to be one tiny fraction over a 25 per cent. increase in any county or county borough then a special further percentage of derating would be necessary.
That is not the whole story.

Mr. Mitchison: These percentages in both cases are maxima. They are not fixed amounts. I should have thought that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted a wide discrepancy he could still have got it by treating them as maxima.

Mr. Brooke: I thought, from other points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that he wanted to ensure as equitable an arrangement as possible between the domestic ratepayers in different areas of the country. I was simply making the point that to avoid exceeding that 25 per cent. limit for any area, even by a tiny fraction, might result in our having to vary the percentage of derating in different cases.
The derating Order will need to be made in the early months of 1962. It would be impossible to insert all the figures in the lists unless the Order were submitted to Parliament early in the year, and approved by the House, and then they would be available to be inserted in the lists.
That means that we have to take these decisions twelve months ahead on figures which give general guidance, but which cannot be definitive and final. Yet, if this Amendment were carried, the Government, in the use of their Order-making power, would be bound by Statute. We have to make absolutely certain that in no case would the effect of the Order, twelve months subsequently, be to leave the increase in the share more than 20 per cent. over the country as a whole, or more than 25 per cent. in any particular area. That being so, it would be necessary to leave a wide margin of safety, because I do not know what we should do if it were discovered, in April of 1963, that there had been a breach of the Statute by an Order made twelve months earlier.
I make that point because, whereas it might seem to the Committee that these percentage increases—20per cent. in one case and 25 per cent. in another—are reasonable figures, in drafting an Order and submitting it to Parliament the Government would obviously have to provide that wide margin of safety, seeing that they were acting on preliminary and provisional figures, in order to be absolutely certain that when the valuations were complete and the new system came into force in 1963, there would be no breach of the Statute.
I do not necessarily say that all these things make it impossible, but they make it considerably more complicated, and they are almost certain to lead to a greater number of different percentages of derating in different parts of the country, just when most people would say that if we can keep to one percentage of derating everywhere—or, perhaps, one, two or three different percentages at the most—that would be best.
These are not just technical objections but have particular weight when it is remembered that the decision by the Minister to lay an Order, and the decision of the House to approve it or otherwise, has to be taken long before the definite figures are available. In these circumstances, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. This is a variant of other Amendments which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering moved persuasively in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: This is the best one.

Mr. Brooke: It may be the best one. That is not for me to judge. For the reasons I have given, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment because I do not think that it would be in the general interest of the country for the Government to write anything so rigid as this into the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I hear that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) compared the Minister with St. George. We all remember that the dragon was killed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who is the dragon in this case?

Mr. Symonds: I think that is obvious. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that ordinary householders would pay over 50 per cent. of the amount expected to be received from rates in 1960–61 and very large numbers of people, particularly those on fixed income, would suffer. Hon. Members opposite claim that those are the people whom they want to protect. The Minister has said that there will be a


high percentage increase in some areas and a low percentage increase in others, but he would like to fix a percentage of between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. over the country as a whole.
Why has the Minister at this juncture provided for these percentages? Why did he not go the full distance in the first place? Is he now saying that because of the block grant he will make it only 25 per cent. for each year but will make the figure cumulative and will get all his money back in the end? These provisions are unjust to the ordinary householder who contributes by far the larger share. It would be unfair to blame the local authorities for something which the Minister is imposing upon them at a time when he is not prepared to shoulder his responsibilities in this respect.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The Committee may be anxious to reach a decision on the Amendment before long, but it will not take me long to demonstrate that the reasons given by the Minister for rejecting it carry no conviction. We all agree that it is necessary to have some power for the temporary derating of domestic properties, otherwise when the important date comes the domestic ratepayer will have a nasty shock. Secondly, we also all agree that the amount of that derating must in equity vary from area to area. Broadly speaking, if an area is almost 100 per cent. domestic properties it would not suffer so much, but in an area where there is a considerable amount of industrial property the domestic ratepayer would suffer a great deal. Consequently, the power of temporary derating ought to be exercised in different degrees from one area to another.
Let us consider why that is important. In his argument against the Amendment the Minister looked at it far too much from the point of view of an administrator and far too little from the point of view of the person who has to pay the rates. What matters to the domestic ratepayer is this question: "For every £1 I pay now, how much shall I have to pay when the effect of this legislation is felt?" What equity requires is that if in one area the domestic ratepayer is paying 25s. for every 20s. he used to pay, it should not be the case that in

other areas he is having to pay very much more than 25s. for every 20s. he used to pay. We want the relation between the future domestic share, to use the language of the Amendment, and the present domestic share to be as alike as possible throughout the country and to have as little variation from one area to another as possible.
The Minister rightly pointed out that if we want that result we should have to have a fairly wide and frequent variation in the percentage of derating. From his point of view as an administrator he wants as few different percentages of derating as possible because that is what is convenient for the administration of the Bill. But we pass Bills for the benefit not of administrators but of the general public, and what matters to the general public is that the ratepayers in one area shall not be subjected to a very much greater shook than the ratepayers in another area.
That is the merit of the Amendment. Although it might require the Minister to have a greater number of percentages of derating than he would otherwise have, it will give a lesser difference in the effect on the ratepayers between one area and another. The Minister nods his head in agreement. I hope that we may hear from him in a different sense before the end of the discussion from the sense in which he has argued previously. There is nothing in his argument about trying to have as few different percentages of derating as possible. That looks at the position from the bureaucratic rather than from the public-spirited point of view.
His other argument may seem at first sight to have a little more substance. He said that he has to make these orders about 12 months before the events to which they relate, and that the calculation must therefore be made and a decision taken as to the percentages which are to be put in without certainty as to how they will work out. He said that in order to comply with the Amendment he would have to leave himself a considerable margin. If it were true that it is inevitable that the Minister must make orders 12 months before the effect is known, I can see that that would be a difficulty for him, but why is he in that position? It is because in Committee he obstinately resisted an


Amendment which would have given him power by subsequent orders to vary or revoke orders made under the Clause.
If in the first place he made an order which he thought would be right and would comply with the Amendment, and then a little nearer the date found that the appropriate percentage was such that his order would not comply with the terms of the Amendment, he could solve the problem quite easily by making another order amending that which he had previously made. Nobody would be subjected to uncertainty because, looking at the Amendment, which would then be part of the Bill, everyone would know what was the ultimate result for the domestic ratepayer which would be achieved. All that the Minister would have to vary would be the necessary mechanism in derating percentages in order to effect that result. The Minister could do that quite easily if he had power to vary or revoke orders made under the Clause by subsequent orders, and the fact that he has no such power is entirely his on fault, because we asked him in Committee to give himself that power and he would not do so. Even yet, it is not too late. There are further opportunities to amend this Bill. Differing opinions are held as to the value of another place, but, at least, it can be used as a place where Amendments can be made when Ministers see the light at the eleventh hour.
Finally, we on this bench are very glad of support by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), and it seems to me that the Minister quite

failed to grasp the purport of his remarks. The Minister said that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West did not regard the Amendment as ideal, and went on to say that the hon. Member did not regard it as the best way of doing it, but I do not think that is quite right. The reason why the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West did not regard this Amendment as ideal was that he thought the whole problem ought to be tackled in a more drastic manner, and that we cannot do at this stage of the Bill, but, within the ambit of the Bill as it now is, I do not think the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was suggesting that the results which we want to achieve could be achieved in any better way than my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.

Therefore, with the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and fortified with the support of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West and his hon. Friends, we shall feel it necessary to test the opinion of the Committee, unless, as I hope, from the facial significations of the Minister earlier, he intends to change his mind. I see that the hopes of repentance that appeared earlier are now dwindling, and, if that is so, after any other hon. Members who wish to address the Committee on this point have done so, we shall feel it necessary to record our judgment on the Minister's obstinacy on this matter.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 164, Noes 224.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[9.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gooch, E. G.


Ainsley, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deer, George
Gourlay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grey, Charles


Awbery, Stan
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alica
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Diamond, John
Grimond, J.


Benson, Sir George
Dodds, Norman
Gunter, Ray


Blyton, William
Donnelly, Desmond
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Boardman, H.
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hannan, William


Bowen, Roderio (Cardigan)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bowles, Frank
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hayman, F. H.


Boyden, James
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Evans, Albert
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, Harold
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Hilton, A. V.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, Percy


Collick, Percy
Forman, J. C.
Holt, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Houghton, Douglas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Crossman, R. H. S.
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Hoy, James H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ginsburg, David
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)




Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Peart, Frederick
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Kelley, Richard
Prentice, R. E.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, John


Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Wade, Donald


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Warbey, William


Lipton, Marcus
Randall, Harry
Weitzman, David


Logan, David
Redhead, E. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


MacColl, James
Robertson, J. (Paisley)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Mackie, John
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McLeavy, Frank
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mapp, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mason, Roy
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Millan, Bruce
Small, William
Zilllacus, K.


Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)



Monslow, Walter
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Mort, D. L.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Aitken, W. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Iremonger, T. L.


Allason, James
Doughty, Charles
Jackson, John


Arbuthnot, John
Duncan, Sir James
James, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Eden, John
Jennings, J. C.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barber, Anthony
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barlow, Sir John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Barter, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fell, Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Berkeley, Humphry
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Fisher, Nigel
Kirk, Peter


Bingham, R. M.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Timothy


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gibson-Watt, David
Leavey, J. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Leburn, Gilmour


Bossom, Clive
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhart, Philip
Lilley, F. J. P.


Box, Donald
Gough, Frederick
Lindsay, Martin


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Litchfield, Capt. John


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Longden, Gilbert


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Loveys, Walter H.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Stephen


Bullard, Denys
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Burden, F. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maltland, Sir John


Channon, H. P. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Chataway, Christopher
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hendry, Forbes
Marlowe, Anthony


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hiley, Joseph
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Costain, A. P.
Hobson, John
Mawby, Ray


Coulson, J. M.
Hooking, Philip N.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Holland, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hollingworth, John
Mills, Stratton


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, R. P.
Montgomery, Fergus


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crowder, F. P
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Morrison, John


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Curran, Charles
Hughes-Young, Michael
Nabarro, Gerald


Deedes, W. F.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


de Ferranti, Basil
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Noble, Michael







Nugent, Sir Richard
Russell, Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Seymour, Leslie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sharples, Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Shaw, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Smithers, Peter
Walder, David


Peel, John
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)
Walker, Peter


Percival, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene


Peyton, John
Speir, Rupert
Watts, James


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Whitelaw, William


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pott, Percivall
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Prior, J. M. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Wise, A. R.


Pym, Francis
Talbot, John E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Ramsden, James
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rawlinson, Peter
Teeling, William
Woollam, John


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Rees, Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Renton, David
Thomas, Peter (Conway)



Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roots, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 3 OF VALUATION FOR RATING ACT, 1953.)

Subsection (2) of section three of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, shall have effect as if the words "substantially the whole" were deemed to apply where either—

(a) four or more bedrooms; or
(b) sleeping accommodation for eight or more persons; or
(c) more than half the available accommodation is ordinarily available for letting.—[Mr. Woodnutt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Woodnutt: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is not to extend the scope of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, but clearly to define precisely what the Section means. The purpose is not to change the definition of a dwelling house, but clearly to define what a boarding house is. Section 3 (2) of the Act reads:
For the purposes of this Act a hereditament which is used for the letting of rooms singly for residential purposes shall be deemed not to be used for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings if the whole, or substantially the whole, of the available accommodation is used for such lettings; but save as aforesaid a hereditament shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be used otherwise than wholly for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings by reason that one or more rooms therein are let for residential purposes.
I have no fault to find with the second part of that subsection. It is clearly the

intention that, even if a dwelling house has two or three rooms let as a regular arrangement, it can still be assessed as a dwelling house. I would not wish to change that. I would not wish anybody using his property for this purpose to be assessed on any other basis than the present one. Neither would it be my wish to have a different basis of assessment where the whole of the hereditament is let for short periods as furnished holiday accommodation. But I wish to make sure that a property which is being used as a boarding house—as a business—is assessed as a business and not as a private dwelling. It is clearly the intention of the 1953 Act that that should be the case. The trouble is that the words:
the whole or substantially the whole
are interpreted in different ways by different valuation officers and different lands tribunals.
If we substitute for those words the words contained in the proposed Clause there will be no doubt what a boarding house is, because the definition is precise. In this connection I should like to quote two cases which illustrate the unfortunate anomalies that are now being created because of this difference in interpretation of the existing definition. Both cases were in 1958. The first was Buckley v. Tudge—a valuation officer—in which it was held that six out of nine units of available accommodation was "substantially the whole", and the property was assessed as a business. The second was Willington v. Woodward—another valuation officer—in which it


was held that five out of seven units of available accommodation was not "substantially the whole". Clearly that is ridiculous, because five out of seven is a higher proportion than six out of nine. These anomalies should be removed by means of a more precise definition.
It is clearly not fair, and it was certainly not the intention of the 1953 Act, that two identical businesses being run as boarding houses should be differently assessed—one as a private house and the other as a business. In the areas where this is happening not only is it unfair as between two boarding house proprietors; it is not fair on the domestic ratepayer, who then has to bear a higher proportion of the total rate burden, and upon the local authorities, who suffer a loss of rate income.
There is one other aspect of the matter. Local authorities have no power of inspection by their local health departments to ensure that there is compliance with the regulations regarding health and hygiene if a property is a private dwelling. It is not fair, and it is not reasonable, for two different businesses operating in the same manner to be treated differently in that respect. I am informed by the British Hotels and Restaurants Association that anomalies of this nature are very widespread. In one resort where an extensive investigation was recently carried out it was found that businesses accommodating from ten to as many as thirty people were assessed as private dwellings. That is clearly not right.
It might be wondered why I have chosen this definition. In fact, the reference to four or more bedrooms is taken from the Report of the Catering Wages Commission to the Minister of Labour on the establishment of a wages board for unlicensed residential hotels. When the Minister was later defining the scope of the wages boards it was he who added the words "or accommodating eight persons." I have taken the figure of 50 per cent. because I believe that if a building is being used to the extent of more than 50 per cent. for letting it is clearly a business. If this definition is satisfactory for the Catering Wages Act it should also be satisfactory for rating purposes.
9.30 p.m.
I should like to quote the Master of the Rolls in the case of Walls v. Peak, a Bournemouth case heard in the Court of Appeal on 25th March, 1960. In that case it was ruled by the Master of the Rolls that seven out of eleven letting rooms was not substantially the whole. The Master of the Rolls said:
This case raised a question of the construction of Section 3 of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, which has left me with a most unhappy feeling that the Parliamentary intention in the end may have been defeated.
I agree with the Master of the Rolls. Twenty-one of my hon. Friends also agree because they have added their names to the Amendment. The British Hotels and Restaurants Association agrees, and so do the vast majority of local authorities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will also agree, and accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Eden: I support the proposed Clause, and I want to impress on the Committee the strong feeling which exists on this subject among bona fide hoteliers. I have been amazed at the pertinacity with which they have presented their case to me and to some of my hon. Friends. Their case adds up to a real sense of injustice among many of them.
In an earlier discussion, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to my constituency as being both happy and healthy. I do not know so much about healthy, but it is certainly a happy constituency, and it is so largely because we cater annually for about 800,000 resident holiday makers. In fact, in Bournemouth we have more overall accommodation than in any other seaside resort. It is for that reason that hoteliers in my constituency feel particularly strongly on this issue.
The issue is simply stated. It is that there are many businesses carried on today in premises which are rated as private residences. I underline what my hon. Friend said. We are not trying to get at the small person. We are not trying to stop the small person in a university town who takes in one or two students from time to time. We are not trying to stop the person who during the peak seasonal period may let a couple of rooms to help tide her over. We are not trying to get at the part-time person.
We are concerned about the people who have a business and do a number of things, such as advertise in local papers that they can accommodate ten, twenty or thirty visitors in their premises; display signs outside their door to the effect that it is a guest house; and invite applications for rooms overnight.
There is an example of that in the official guide to Bournemouth. I will not mention the name, because I do not want to draw the attention of anybody outside the Committee to the name of this establishment. The advertisement takes up half a page in the official guide. The people who are advertising are members of the local hotels association. They can accommodate a substantial number of residents throughout the year but the premises are nevertheless rated as private premises. It does not add up and make sense. These people are carrying on a business, and they should be treated as business people. That is the sum total of what we are trying to bring to the attention of the Committee this evening.
My hon. Friend quoted a number of examples, one of the most notorious of which was the Bournemouth case which the Bournemouth valuation officer took to court. He lost the case, unfortunately, because it was said that seven rooms let out of eleven did not constitute substantially the whole of the building.
I appreciate full well that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary may share the view expressed in the journal, Income Tax and Rating, in April, 1960. They may take the line that, in the light of the forthcoming changes, by 1963 this will not be such a big problem and that by 1968 it will have diminished further and the situation will not be anything like so serious. They may equally say that whatever definition is given will give rise to further litigation and anomalies and that there will always be the marginal case which will be the subject of dispute. I do not doubt that the latter may well be so, but there are good grounds for improving on the definition which is at present contemplated and which has been in force for the last four or five years.
But I do not accept the argument, if this is to be the case, that by 1963 or 1968 onwards the position will not be anything like so drastic. It is true that

for rating purposes they will all be on current values whether they are bona fide business premises or regarded as private residences. But there still remains the fact that some will be treated as businesses, and their profitability will be taken into account, and the starting point will be slightly different in the eyes of the valuation officer. If in any case it is a business, why should it not be recognised as such and recognised for all the purposes and not just for the purposes of getting custom and clients? So I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel inclined to give serious consideration to our case.
Having studied the proposed Clause with some care, I accept straight away that it may not fully meet the case that we have in mind. I accept that it might be possible to shoot holes in the drafting. If that is so, I hope that that will not be used by the Parliamentary Secretary as an argument for doing nothing in this direction. If what I have suggested is the case, I hope he will seriously consider what use he can make of another place in bringing forward another new Clause of this kind.
I stress again that this matter is considered by the hotel industry to be of the greatest possible importance, and that the industry itself is of the greatest possible importance to our economy and that we ought in justice to it to recognise its views on the matter.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot agree with the proposed Clause, though I appreciate the difficulties which it seeks to overcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has said, a number of different decisions have been reached by the courts about the exact proportion of a house which may or may not be let vis-à-vis the owner in this respect. Our difficulty here is the three definitions which are given—"four or more bedrooms let", "sleeping accommodation for eight or more persons", or "50 per cent. of the total accommodation let".
Here we refer to letting four rooms separately, or four units, whereas if we let four separate flats that might represent four times the accommodation. It does not add up. I consider that the definition should specify the total proportion of the whole house which the owner-occupier uses for himself, and


that the judgment should not be on the basis of the number of persons accommodated or the exact units into which the owner-occupier chooses to divide the accommodation. One might well have four persons in a single room, or one might well let it as one flat.
Although I agree that there is an anomaly in the law, I cannot support the proposed Clause. My view is that we should go for a definite proportion of the whole house and also leave it to a certain extent to the rating authorities to decide whether in an individual case accommodation is being occupied as a private house or as a business.

Sir K. Joseph: It pains me to have to tell my hon. Friends, who speak with such emphasis and vigour on the subject, that the proposed Clause does not achieve what they set out to achieve.
I will deal first with the technical background. I make no apology, because the subject is important to so many people, for dealing with it at some length. I shall then come to what is behind the proposed Clause and deal with that.
Concealed here under the general name of a lodging house of one sort or another are three quite different categories of premises. First, there is the open, avowed boarding house. I would say in passing that a boarding house needs planning permission. A boarding house has, I suppose, two main features in that it takes not only single people but families and provides some amount of board. A boarding house is not a dwelling house within the meaning of the 1953 Act, so it is quite untouched by the Clause. Indeed, it was not the intention of the Clause to alter the position concerning the open and avowed boarding house.
A boarding house is now a commercial hereditament for rating purposes and at the moment it gets 20 per cent. derating. That extent of derating will end in 1963.
The second category is the dwelling-house, the owner of which lets one or more rooms to lodgers. Such a house is still a dwelling house for rating purposes, even if one or more rooms are let for residential purposes. This arises, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) indicated, as a result of the second half of Section 3 (2)

of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953. It states:
…a hereditament shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be used otherwise than wholly for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings by reason that one or more rooms therein are let for residential purposes.
A dwelling house is at the moment still valued for rating purposes on the 1939 basis, and in 1963 it will revert to current value, but it will benefit for a period of five years from any derating power exercised by my right hon. Friend. Of course, I accept, as the mover of the Clause stressed, that no one wants to prejudice the position of the ordinary householder who takes in a lodger or two. That is understood. My hon. Friends were quite right to stress that the country needs more and more householders willing to take in lodgers from universities, colleges of advanced technology, technical colleges and the like.
But it is suggested that some families, particularly in seaside resorts, squeeze themselves into one, two or three rooms during the holiday season and take visitors into the other rooms, deliberately competing with boarding houses, although their houses are still valued for rating as dwelling houses at 1939 values.
I must emphasise to my hon. Friends that the Clause does not touch any such cases. They are confusing the first half of Section 3 (2) of the Act, which applies to a quite different category of dwelling, with the second half of that subsection.
The fact is that the first half of subsection (2) in which occur the words
…substantially the whole…
which my hon. Friends seek to define, is limited to governing the case of the letting of rooms
singly for residential purposes.
That is a different hereditament in terms of rating from a boarding house where the rooms are not let only singly and not let only for residential purposes. The rooms are let sometimes singly, sometimes in groups, sometimes for single people and sometimes for families and let not only for residential purposes but with board. There is a clear distinction.

Mr. Woodnutt: Section 3 (6) states:
In this Section references to the letting of rooms are references to the letting thereof by way of a tenancy or of a licence, and either with or without board…

9.45 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but that does not alter the fact that the first part of subsection (2) does not refer to any sort of hereditament other than the one where the letting of rooms occurs singly for residential purposes, and that, I am advised, cannot cover boarding houses.
The sort of premises it does cover are, in fact, premises of the third variety, namely, the flatlet house, the house divided into what are almost self-contained flatlets each being let singly for residential purposes. It is the flatlet house and the flatlet house alone which would be affected by the new Clause if it were accepted.

Mr. Woodnutt: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I am sure that he knows more about this than I do, but the cases I quoted related to boarding houses.

Sir K. Joseph: I know that this is very confusing, and I have now to explain to the Committee that the interpretation of this subsection has caused a very great deal of confusion in the past. Even the pundits in the Valuation Office at one time were disposed to regard the proportion of rooms devoted to bed and breakfast or board residence as a valid test of whether a hereditament was a boarding house or dwelling house even in the case of houses in holiday areas. This view appears to have been approved by decisions of the Lands Tribunal, but, after a review of their practice—this is, I am sorry to say the trump with which I am obliged to defeat my hon. Friend's intervention—following the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Walls v. Peak, the Valuation Office concluded that the first part of Section 3 (2), to which the new Clause relates, is not in any way relevant except in relation to the flatlet house. I am advised that, as the law now stands, the new Clause would affect only the flatlet house, and, of course, the flatlet house is not the target.
I am sure that the Committee will not wish me to go into great detail about Walls v. Peak, but I will say that to take premises out of the class of dwelling-house for rating purposes and put them into the class of flatlets, it is necessary under Section 3 (2) for the whole or substantially the whole of the accommodation available to be let singly. As my hon.

Friend explained, Walls v. Peak decided that seven rooms out of eleven was not substantially the whole, and it decided also that accommodation retained for the proprietor's own use had to be counted in the calculation.
The Government are not discontented with the position as it was left by Walls v. Peak. Broadly, the Government's intention in this part of the 1953 Act was to distinguish between those people who, as it were, were trading in rooms and those who still occupied their own houses and used their houses mainly for their own occupation while making use of some rooms for letting. The decision in Walls v. Peak is, therefore, broadly in line with the Government's aim.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) feared, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) said was not at all his intention, the new Clause if passed would cause to be treated as a flatlet house and not a dwelling-house—and therefore cause to be treated at present substantially more severely for rating purposes—a house of only, say, three bedrooms and one living room and kitchen, owned, perhaps—I do not want to pile on the agony—by a widow who let three rooms singly to lodgers. I know that that is not the intention of my hon. Friends, but that is what this proposal would do. It would cause serious damage all over the country and would do nothing about boarding houses or houses competing with boarding houses. I therefore hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
So much for the technicalities. I now come to the substance of the complaint that there are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was a sufficiently confused situation to justify an explanation. I now wish to deal with the substance of the complaint. My hon. Friend says, and I do not doubt it, that there are dwelling houses still retaining the rating advantages of dwelling houses which are competing with boarding houses. My hon. Friends say that the boundary line between the two categories should be better drawn. I can only agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and with the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West that any movement of the boundary line would only cause another crop, probably


equally as large, of anomalies and be equally unjust.
There is a number of questions which anyone seeking to redraw the boundary line would have to answer. Should the dwelling house lose its domestic valuation because a family of guests is taken in? Should it make any difference whether the guests are relatives of the owners of the house? Should the motive of the letting make any difference? If a family depends on the letting for its income, should that move a dwelling house into the commercial category? If so, does that mean that, if a wife lets a room on a bed and breakfast basis in order to earn pin money for herself, the house should remain rated on a domestic basis? What would happen to a house the owner of which accepts lodgers only in the holiday season? Would the owner have to prove the house's domestic status by not taking lodgers at any other time of the year? What would happen to the house which accepts visitors only after the height of the holiday season? Decisions on all these questions would have to be made if we sought to make a distinction between boarding houses and dwelling houses and we would be bound to create fresh hardships and anomalies.
Although the outcry of the British Hotels and Restaurants Association may be strident at the moment, the outcry from all over the country if we changed the definition and inadvertently penalised people who are letting their rooms for all sorts of good and reasonable purposes would be infinitely more serious and just as justified.
I come to the last part of what I have to say. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West guessed, the difference between the rating treatment of houses and boarding houses—that is, the difference in treatment between domestic hereditaments and commercial hereditaments—will have dwindled by 1963 and practically have disappeared by 1968 when any derating under Clause 2 will be finished. If it is said that between 1963 and 1968 the harm could still be serious, then I must remind my hon. Friends that in 1963 the power in the ratepayer to challenge the valuation of a hereditament other than his own will revive. At the moment, that power has been temporarily extinguished, but in

1963 it will revive. Therefore, after that date anyone thinking that a dwelling house should be rated as a boarding house will be able to draw the attention of the valuation officer to what is alleged is going on.
Finally, I deal with the claim that, even after 1968, there will remain a gap in assessment between the boarding house on the one hand and the dwelling-house of equal size that is said to be surreptitiously competing with the boarding house on the other. At that time they will both be valued on a current basis and neither will benefit from any derating. However, it is said that there may still be a gap. I acknowledge that this may still be true to some extent. The valuation officer must estimate the rent which a hypothetical tenant would be prepared to pay for the hereditament if it were vacant and available for letting. Any factor influencing the hypothetical tenancy must be taken into account—for example, whether the house could be used as a boarding house without the need to get planning permission. If planning permission had not been already obtained it would turn on the general question whether the proposed use constituted a material change of use. That would depend, among other things, on for what length of time and to what extent the hereditament had been used for boarders.
It is not therefore possible to give a general answer to this question. It all depends on the facts of the individual case. But again I say that it will be open to the third party ratepayer to challenge the valuation on any hereditament if he thinks that someone is getting away with it.
To summarise all these different technical points, my answer to my hon. Friends is that any redefinition of boundary between boarding house and dwelling house would cause a fresh batch of anomalies and might raise much injustice in every town, especially university towns, as well as in seaside resorts. Secondly, the importance of the rating gap between domestic and commercial premises—in this case, between the dwelling house and the dwelling house operating surreptitiously in competition with the boarding house—will dwindle by 1963 and practically disappear by 1968.
Thirdly, after 1963 the citizen will once again have the right to challenge any valuation of premises other than his own, as well as his own, which he thinks is wrong. Finally, the Amendment does not touch the question of substance. It would penalise heavily at random a large number of houses all over the country that were not competing in any way with boarding houses, and I very much hope that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Mitchison: I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary does not like the proposed Clause. I merely call his attention to one other anomaly. I think I am right in saying that a boarding house, one room of which is occupied as the proprietor's dwelling, is a dwelling for the purposes of rent control.

Mr. Woodnutt: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself who proposed the Clause, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the great trouble to which he has gone in answering at such length. I appreciate most of the difficulties that he has pointed out, but I still think that there are bad anomalies where, obviously, somebody is running a large property as a business and it is being assessed as a dwelling-house. I appreciate that it is difficult to do anything about it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will look at this problem and try, probably over the next year or two, to think of a way of dealing with it. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(RATING OF GAS BOARDS.)

(1) In respect of any rate period beginning after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three, a Gas Board shall, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section six of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions), Act, 1955, be liable to be rated in respect of any administrative offices occupied by the Board substantially for purposes concerning gas supplied outside the rating area in which the offices are situated; and accordingly any such offices shall be rated for any such period and shall be included in the valuation list in force during any such period for the rating area in which the offices are situated and in every rate made for any such period by the rating authority for that area.

(2) The rating of offices under the foregoing subsection shall be a "substantial change of circumstances" within the meaning of subsection (5) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1958.—[Mr. F. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following two new Clauses, also in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris)—(Rating of Electricity Boards.) and (Rating of British Transport Commission.).

Mr. Harris: In introducing the three new Clauses, I ask for the patience of the Committee, because they are rather complicated. They cover very difficult matter. Their purpose is to draw the attention of the Committee to what the Croydon authority and myself feel to be the need for a change in the existing law so that the administrative offices occupied by gas and electricity undertakings and the Transport Commission and used in respect of their activities outside the rating area in which these offices are situated shall be separately rateable, as properties occupied by private industry and commerce are today.
Some properties, principally the showrooms, occupied by these boards, and some properties, principally houses and hotels, occupied by the Transport Commission, are separately rateable. In general, however, properties belonging to these three types of undertaking are rated under special arrangements. These special arrangements can, unfortunately, react upon local authorities such as the county borough of Croydon. The new Clauses would remove the anomaly and provide for separate rateability of these administrative offices of these three types of undertaking occupied substantially for purposes concerned with functions—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 146.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Partridge, E.


Aitken, W. T.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peyton, John


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Barter, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pott, Percivall


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Prior, J. M. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hendry, Forbes
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Berkeley, Humphry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Jonn
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Hobson, John
Rees, Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hooking, Philip N.
Renton, David


Bishop, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bossom, Clive
Hollingworth, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Holt, Arthur
Roots, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hornby, R. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Box, Donald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Russell, Ronald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brewis, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Seymour, Leslie


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Sharpies, Richard


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Shaw, M.


Bryan, Paul
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bullard, Denys
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Smithers, Peter


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jackson, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
James, David
Speir, Rupert


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kirk, Peter
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Langford-Holt, J.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Coulson, J. M.
Leburn, Gilmour
Teeling, William


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Lindsay, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Curran, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Deedes, W. F.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
van Straubenzee, W. R.


de Ferranti, Basil
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Wade, Donald


Duncan, Sir James
Maitland, Sir John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Eden, John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Walder, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marlowe, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Watts, James


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Finlay, Graeme
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Gough, Frederick
Noble, Michael
Woollam, John


Gower, Raymond
Nugent, Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Gibson-Watt and



Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Arbuthnot, John
Hayman, F. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Randall, Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hilton, A. V.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Robertson, J. (Paisley)


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Short, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Stones, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, J.
Swingler, Stephen


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Sylvester, George


Dempsey, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Driberg, Tom
Logan, David
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Timmons, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Warbey, William


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John
Weitzman, David


Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Manuel, A. C.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Willey, Frederick


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grey, Charles
Owen, Will



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. McCann

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL (RECOMMITTED)

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Harris: I was saying that the Clauses which I am advocating would remove the anomaly to which I referred and would provide for the separate rate-ability of the administrative offices of these three undertakings. The Clauses will take effect from 1st April, 1963, when the new valuation list comes into force. The first of the new Clauses deals with the gas boards. Until 1955 the law relating to gas undertakings came under the genral rating law and they were assessed on the annual rental value calculated on the basis of annual profit. [Interruption.] The new method of valuation—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. It is very difficult to hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Harris: The new method of valuation was provided for under the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, with the subsequent amendments in the Local Government Act, 1958. Arising from those Acts, dwelling houses and showrooms occupied by the gas boards were rated the same as ordinary commercial properties, but other properties belonging to the gas boards and comprising by far the vast majority of their properties are rated under special arrangement.
The present position is that the rateable value of the gas boards, not related to the actual properties occupied except for the houses and showrooms which they possess and the gas mains and


premises directly concerned with the supply of gas to consumers and offices in which actual payments for gas are made, are rated in accordance with a formula which takes into account the gas manufactured or sold in an area. But if in a rating area a board occupies premises for purposes not directly concerned with the increase of the amount of gas manufactured in that area or the amount of gas supplied to the area, the local authority receives no payment by way of rates which can be specifically related to those properties.
The South-Eastern Gas Board has concentrated its offices in Croydon. The offices cover not only Croydon but other rating areas and the Croydon Corporation receives no extra payment at all by way of rates for those offices which would have been rateable at approximately £8,000 a year if ordinary ratepayers had been involved. The new proposal need not add an additional burden on the gas board because the first new Clause authorises the Minister to reduce the basic total of rateable values for a board by the rateable value of the offices which are being separately rated. If the power were exercised it would mean that basically there would be an apportionment between the rating areas in respect of gas supply and manufacture, but the rating authorities which had these administrative offices in them would benefit by the separate assessment of those offices.
10.15 p.m.
The second new Clause deals with electricity boards. Until electricity was nationalised, all electricity industrial undertakings were valued on a profits basis, but the Local Government Act, 1948, laid down that at 1st April, 1948, payments to be made yearly by the British Electricity Authority would be of a fixed amount, subsequently adjusted annually and divided amongst the local authorities in proportion to the values of the respective areas. There were subsequent minor changes in the Local Government Act, 1958. The Electricity Act, 1957, made changes in the organisation of the industry. The Electricity Council was set up to co-ordinate the work of the boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board was set up to provide electricity in bulk to the area boards for distribution.
The Local Government Act, 1958, introduced new rating provisions by which the premises occupied by the Electricity Council as showrooms were still assessed under the general rating law. The bulk of the boards' activities, and therefore the greater part of the premises which they occupy, are concerned with the generating and supply of electricity, and these premises had artificial values arrived at under very complicated provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1958.
The present position of electricity undertakings is that premises occupied by the Electricity Council—dwelling houses and showrooms so occupied—are assessed under the present ordinary law but no other premises occupied by the electricity boards are so specifically rated, and the payments to the rating authorities by way of rates for generating stations are apportioned between the rating authorities. These apportionments make no allowance for the fact that the administrative offices of the electricity boards may tend to be concentrated in particular rating areas although their activities are often for the benefit of a much wider area.
We have concentrated in Croydon the Croydon and West Kent Sub-Area Headquarters of the South Eastern Electricity Board, and these headquarters cover towns far afield, such as Purley, Caterham, Coulsdon, Godstone, Sanderstead and Warlingham. In equity, therefore, Croydon authority should benefit by this concentration in the same way as if these offices had been occupied by ordinary ratepayers. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The last new Clause is about the British Transport Commission. Before nationalisation all railways were rated under a general rating law on a profits basis, but each railway company was assessed as a whole and the valuations were undertaken by the railway assessment authority and not by the individual rating authority. After nationalisation the Local Government Act, 1948, provided that property occupied by the British Transport Commission was exempt from rates and, instead, payments for the benefit of the local authorities were to be made. I must stress that dwelling houses, hotels and places of public refreshment which were occupied by the Commission continued to be


rated in the ordinary way, as did railway-owned property which the railways let out. It should be remembered that properties occupied in respect of road transport, sea transport and harbours still remained rateable.
For the railway properties, the British Transport Commission paid each year a sum which is apportioned amongst the authorities in accordance with their various areas. The county borough received the whole of the amount so apportioned, but in the case of district councils they received one-third and two-thirds went to the county council. But these payments are in no way related to the actual value of the railway property occupied by the Commission in any area. As such, it can react very unfairly indeed on those local authorities with similar annual values, but having, in respect of their areas, totally dissimilar amounts of railway property.
Here again, I would instance to the Committee that in Croydon the British Transport Commission occupies fourteen railway stations, several goods yards, a marshalling yard, extensive engine sheds and other works, but the average annual payment which Croydon has received has been as low as £17,982. Over and above this, the Commission has now arranged tenancies of an extensive new office block which has just been built in the town for itself and also for a ticket agency, and under the present law the Croydon Corporation does not receive a single extra penny contribution to the rates from the Commission because of the occupation of these premises. If these modern offices were being occupied by ordinary ratepayers and not by this nationalised industry, we in Croydon would receive additional rates to the extent of £15,000 a year.
My new Clause enables the Minister to vary the amount of the payment made annually by the Commission for the benefit of all the authorities, and thus in this way offices in respect of which the Commission would, under my new Clause, have been liable, would be rated in the general way. I expect that the Minister may take the view that the Association of Municipal Corporations is not in direct support of this new Clause,

but if that is so, I should like to make the point that I have seen a minute of 26th April, when this matter was discussed in response to a request made to it by the Croydon authority. In it, it stated:
While recognising that there is a case for the separate rating of administrative offices of gas and electricity undertakings, we still do not feel that an Amendment of this Bill is warranted.
Certainly, the Association recognises the case.
I conclude by saying that in these three instances which I have given of gas and electricity undertakings and the British Transport Commission, we in Croydon lose at present about £40,000 a year in rate contributions, and it does not matter how one thinks of that, it is the fact that that additional burden must be carried by all the other Croydon ratepayers, even our own domestic ratepayers. I think that an anomaly of this kind is extremely unfair, and that the Government should take the earliest opportunity to put the matter right.
One might foresee that officials may take the line that it is a tremendous task to rectify the matter, but, after all, there was a precedent for it, because it was done in regard to the showrooms. I feel that this matter should be tackled as quickly as possible. From our point of view, this is a problem which will not get any less, because blocks of offices are being put up in Croydon and are being let to organisations of this kind on 21-year leases, and, obviously, there can be additional occupation later on. The rates generally will continue to go up. No one can stop that, because of the additional demands being put on the town, and this will be an ever-increasing amount which will be lost to the Croydon authority, and, therefore, the burden will be carried more and more by the other ratepayers.
I beg of the Minister, when dealing with this matter, to realise that we in Croydon—and I am sure it applies to many other towns throughout the country—have a real case to submit to him, and we sincerely hope that this anomaly can be rectified at a very early date.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). I think I may claim that I initiated this argument six years ago in concert with my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health shortly before he became Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It sprang from the fact that in Worcestershire a small local authority, the Stourport-on-Severn Urban District Council—small, not very rich and not very important in the national field, but important because it is in my constituency—discovered that an electricity showroom in High Street, Stourport, although notionally assessed to rates, did not yield any rating revenue to the local authority. As that showroom was selling substantial numbers of electrical appliances in competition with private enterprise shops in the area, all of which were required to pay rates, it seemed to be an inequitable burden placed on other commercial ratepayers that a nationalised industry shop should escape the rate burden altogether.
The present Minister of Health and I got this matter put right, but only within the narrow context of showrooms. All the arguments which apply to the showrooms of nationalised industries or similar establishments apply equally to administrative centres such as large blocks of offices. For example, within half a mile of the House of Commons is a huge administrative centre being erected for Shell. Will Shell pay rates to the local authority in whose area the new Shell building is situate? Of course it will. It will be rated there, but, if it were an electricity headquarters of a nationalised industry, the local authority in whose area that electricity headquarters or block of offices was situated would get no benefit at all from the rates. The rating valuation for the new administrative centre would be taken into the whole of the electricity hereditaments for England and Wales and then an apportionment would be made to the local authority in whose area the administrative headquarters was situated.
I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government nodding agreement. That is

precisely the position, but my right hon. Friend is a member of the Cabinet and within collective responsibility and Conservative policy we have said over and over again that we are going to operate these nationalised industries as commercial organisations. Why should there be this invidious distinction between the manner in which Shell pays rates for administrative headquarters to the local authority in which the building is situated and—one law for that and one for municipal headquarters—a nationalised industry, the Central Electricity Generating Board, half a mile down the Thames, goes free? In our Conservative philosophy we do not recognise any difference in the operational arrangement of these industries. We say nationalised industries should be operated on the same commercial scale as privately-owned industries.
In the case of these administrative headquarters, it is singularly unjust. I quote from the Midlands, where I have greater knowledge than, for example, in Croydon. The Midlands Electricity Board has its headquarters at Mucklows Hill, now part of the Borough of Halesowen, slightly to the west of the City of Birmingham. At those headquarters are carried out all the administrative functions and arrangements for the whole Midlands Electricity Board and millions and millions of purchasers of electricity throughout the area. On that premise it is then argued that that large adminstrative headquarters pays a notional sum in rates to a pool and that from that pool is distributed the notional sum of money to all the local authorities in the area, but no local authority has any means at all of challenging whether the sum received from the pool is, in fact, correct or otherwise.
10.30 p.m.
I claim, on the analogy of the Shell building on the Thames, that the rates for the Mucklows Hill headquarters of the Midlands Electricity Board should properly be paid to the Borough of Halesowen, this being the rating authority in whose area this administrative headquarters is situate.
Then there are these administrative offices in the sub-areas at Evesham, Worcester and Kidderminster. But again


the rates are not paid by those administrative offices to the local authority. There is the same notional assessment, notional apportionment and notional distribution, and it is all exceedingly unjust.
There are three types of electricity hereditament. They are, respectively, generating stations—the largest and the most valuable hereditament in the industry—administrative centres such as electricity offices, and showrooms. We have dealt with showrooms. We seek in these new Clauses to deal with administrative offices. I hope that in due course we are going to deal—although it would be out of order for me to talk about them this evening—with power stations. There the spread of the revenue from rates over such a large area detrimentally affects in the most acute form small local authorities which happen circumstantially to have major electricity or other nationalised industrial hereditaments in the particular area of that authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West talked of his constituency in the County Borough of Croydon losing a revenue of £40,000 from the electricity authority in a single year. I do not wish to better his arguments in that way, but if he would care to carry out an examination of the loss of rating revenue in Stourport-on-Severn, which is only a fraction of the size of Croydon, he would find that the loss of rates is far more acute, due to the fact that in that local authority area there is a large and valuable electricity hereditament in the form of twin power stations, the rates of which, notionally applied, are spread on a national scale and only a tiny part of those rates goes—

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I hope the hon. Member realises that the subject of power stations does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, Sir Gordon; I said earlier that I recognised that it would be out of order to refer to electricity power stations. It was only a passing reference.
This matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who has Portishead in his constituency, who experience exactly equal circumstances.
My plea, therefore, to my right hon. Friend is that if it is the policy of the Government to conduct nationalised industries on a commercial basis—if that is our philosophy—it is surely just and reasonable that all hereditaments owned by the nationalised industries should pay rates on a scale, on a basis and in accord with principles accepted as applicable to private enterprise industries, and that there should not be this invidious distinction between the Shell building half a mile away from here paying rates on a commercial scale, and the Central Electricity Generating Board half a mile down the river paying rates through a national pool on an entirely different basis, and thereby yielding little or no financial benefit to that local authority in which this large administrative centre or block of offices is situate.
That is the case in principle. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he does not reply tonight by accepting this Clause, will at least make appropriately sympathetic noises in my direction and give a promise that he will consider Amendments in another place.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to make two short comments. The first is that the rating of these offices of nationalised industries, which has been discussed before in conjunction with other legislation, is not a question of how much the total to be paid by these nationalised industries is, but who is to get the rateable value of these offices.
To listen to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) one would suppose that these industries, because they are nationalised, pay less rates. I do not believe that to be the case. This question, in the last resort, resolves itself into a dispute between those local authorities who happen to have these offices in their areas and those who have not. If that raises any question of Conservative principle, it is one which eludes me—but then, so does most of Conservative philosophy.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Member misunderstands me—perhaps deliberately. I said—and he will not agree with this—that the philosophy of the Conservative Party is that nationalised industries should be conducted on a commercial basis. That is not his philosophy, but it is mine, and if they


are to be conducted on that basis then they must pay the same rates as a commercial, private enterprise undertaking.

Mr. Mitchison: Of course, they are in the difficulty that they cannot get a subsidy like the Cunard Company. I do not know whether that raises any deep question of Conservative philosophy either, and the short point here has nothing whatever to do with what the hon. Member says it is connected with. I am not deliberately misrepresenting him. I am merely telling him to mend the error of his ways.
Apparently the hon. Member says that the total paid by these bodies is less than it should be, whereas there is no question whatever here of the total. There is a question as to which of the local authorities concerned shall get what part of the total, and that question lies between Croydon and some of the places with unpronounceable names which he mentioned—

Mr. Nabarro: Stourport-on-Seven.

Mr. Mitchison: —on the one hand and a number of local authorities on the other.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my second point. It seems to me that the very complicated legislation, in connection with railways on the one hand and the cost of electricity undertakings on the other, may need revision. I do not want to go into it in detail, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster, in the more sensible part of his speech—it was the part which was out of order—mentioned something about which, as he rightly said, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) was also concerned.
Since it is out of order, I had better not even say what it was, but I expect that the Minister will remember it, and I hope that he will be able to assure us that steps are being taken to look at this legislation as a whole, and that those steps will not be distracted by the irrelevancies of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who looks simply at the rather small point about offices. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the general working of the scheme and, in particular—if I may mention it at

the last moment—the older gas and electricity undertakings.

Mr. Brooke: I would not seek to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the making of noises, but I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) will forgive me if, at twenty minutes to eleven, I do not deliver my well-known three-hour lecture giving an historical account of the manner in which we arrive at the rateable values of the gas and electricity industries and the payments in lieu of rates made in respect of the railways and canals.
I listened with great interest to the speeches of both my hon. Friends, and I at once accept that there is a problem here. It is a difficult one, and, if I may say so with respect, it is rather more difficult than the speeches of my hon. Friends revealed. But there is no getting away from the fact that it would be hard to defend the present arrangements as perfect from every point of view.
The truth, as far as I know, is that the formulae methods of assessing the contributions of these nationalised industries to local expenses were adopted because the statutory provisions governing their trading made it virtually impossible to continue to assess the various undertakings by the profits method. The fact that there are special statutory provisions applying to these industries singles them out from the Shell Company or other great industrial undertakings. Moreover, their very extensiveness would have made apportionment of any total value an extremely difficult and contentious task.
This whole question was raised—I remember it well—while the Local Government Bill of 1958 was going through the House, and I should like to tell the Committee that it came up in the course of the deliberations of the working party which I set up before the Bill now before the Committee. At that stage, no endeavour was made to bring the nationalised boards into the Bill. That point was not reached because, in fact, the discussions in the working party did not go very far. I think I am at liberty to say that there was fairly general agreement that at that stage the matter should not be pursued further.
We must bear in mind that it is only since April, 1959, that the present arrangements in respect of gas and electricity have been operating in just this form, and it seemed a bit early to have a review. The local authority associations were represented on that working party, and they could certainly have pursued the matter further had they so wished. Nobody from my Department deterred them in any way. But there appeared to be a general feeling that it was too early to go much further into the matter at that stage.
I would mention, if I can do so without getting out of order, that those short discussions in the working party threw up the fact that if one was going to examine specifically the case of administrative offices of nationalised undertakings then there were certain other classes of property of the undertakings which might be worthy of special consideration, such, for example, as railway engineering workshops.
The industries themselves were not brought into these discussions because it was known that they almost certainly regard the singling out of offices as a retrograde step, and as nobody wished to press the matter further there seemed to be no particular reason to invite them to join the discussions. Their case was certainly not prejudiced in that way.
What lies behind this trio of new Clauses is, as I read them, the thought that there are certain properties which are for purposes outside the rating area. Of course, a great many of the properties of the nationalised boards would fulfil that description—railway lines, pylons and all sorts of things—but they could not be so easily valued for rating purposes.
This is property that falls into a category which, if it were not occupied by one of these nationalised undertakings, could be valued for rating purposes upon an ordinary basis. I well appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West and the ratepayers of Croydon generally feel that Croydon has been particularly unlucky, in that it has certain buildings which it would not be difficult to assess for rating purposes, and on which the borough council would be able to draw full rates on the normal basis if they were not occupied by one of these bodies.
10.45 p.m.
The fact remains that if we were to accept the idea that is inherent in these three new Clauses we would, in fairness, have to look at the effect it would have on the rest of the undertakings and upon their rateable value. The new Clauses make provision for the adjustment of rateable value of the rest of the undertaking, but whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster mentioned certain cases—to which I must not refer specifically—in respect of which he said that the present arrangements detrimentally affected a certain rating area in the most acute form, I must advise him that if the new Clauses were accepted as they stand we would find ourselves detrimentally affecting a great many rating areas, particularly those which contained parts of the nationalised railway system, because although the total rateable value of the gas and electricity industries is fairly large, it is common knowledge that the British Transport Commission is not at present a highly profitable undertaking, and the total amount paid by way of rates by the Commission under the present formula is tiny compared with the great amount of property which the Commission occupies.
Under the terms of one of the new Clauses the full commercial rateable value of the administrative offices of the Commission would be taken out of that total valuation of the one undertaking, and surprisingly little would be left, and that would have to be spread over the whole railway system—

Mr. Nabarro: With great respect, my right hon. Friend has got my argument completely wrong. I do not want to increase or diminish in any way the rates paid by any one of these nationalised industries. All the new Clauses ask for is that the rates derived from an administrative centre or block of offices in a certain place shall go to the rating authority in whose area that administrative centre is situated. That does not raise or lower the total rates of the nationalised industry concerned.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has got the logic of my argument wrong. If I understand the new Clauses correctly, if we take X as the total rateable value of one of these nationalised undertakings and Y as the total rateable value, on an ordinary commercial basis, of the various administrative offices that would


be caught by the new Clauses, they contemplate that the rateable value of the whole of the rest of the undertaking minus the administrative offices, would be X-Y. All I am saying is that although X-Y in the case of the gas and electricity industries would be quite a substantial sum, in the case of the British Transport Commission it would be surprisingly small, especially when spread out over all the other rating areas which would rightly claim a share in the matter.
These matters must be carefully considered. I am sure my hon. Friends appreciate that it would not be right to make a fundamental change like this late one evening, without the most exact study of all the results that would follow. I agree that it is a subject which at the right time should be pursued further, and I submit that the most appropriate time to look at it again would be when we know what the 1963 valuations are, after they have actually come into force. At the moment, it is just over two years since the 1958 Act took effect on gas and electricity. In 1963 we shall have the new valuations of gas and electricity in relation to the valuations of all the other properties of all kinds in the country, and we shall be able to look at it.
I suggest that at some suitable time after the 1963 valuations have come into effect two years hence an opportunity should be found to look into this and any other weaknesses, or alleged weaknesses, of the formulae.

Mr. Nabarro: That is not fair. This is a very important matter. I give not a fig that it is ten minutes to eleven. One of the purposes of the Bill is to end industrial derating within the forseeable future. Will the end of industrial derating apply equally to private enterprise industrial hereditaments as to the industrial hereditaments of nationalised industries? That has a vital bearing on the amount of revenue which local authorities will receive, and it is directly connected with the administrative centres and offices referred to in these proposed Clauses.
I am not going to wait until 1963 for that, because after 1963 there will have to be new legislation to bring nationalised industries on to a par with private enterprise, and that would be

1965, in the lifetime of the next Parliament, if I am here at all.

Mr. Brooke: If my hon. Friend is not going to wait until then, I am afraid that he and I have to quarrel because I do not see my way to recommending Parliament to amend the present Bill to fulfil what he desires.
I am making what seems to me to be a practical and sensible offer, that is, that when we have got the 1963 valuations we can look at the whole picture, by working party or otherwise, to review the weaknesses and the alleged weaknesses. I was not suggesting that all the weaknesses were alleged weaknesses. I was saying that I recognised that there are some weaknesses, and I think it is likely that all the parties concerned, on either side, may seek to draw attention to other weaknesses they allege. I am suggesting that they could all go, as it were, into the pot together.

Mr. P. Williams: As I understand it, there will be a degree of derating which will continue to apply to the nationalised industries. This is rather out of keeping with the remarks made earlier about shipbuilding and the end of derating there. Surely these things do not tie up at the moment?

Mr. Brooke: I assure my hon. Friend that he has it wrong. It is not the case that the nationalised industries will get some uncovenanted benefit here. I am saying that when we have the 1963 valuation lists in force we can have a thorough up-to-date examination made on the current facts and figures of all these difficulties which have emerged, and further difficulties which may by then have emerged in the working of the formulae. It will be the individual local authorities, the local authority associations, the nationalised boards, and anybody else, who will have an opportunity at that stage to make their criticisms and their suggestions, and they can all be looked at together.
That, I think, is a practical way of approaching the matter. I confess, frankly, that I do not here and now see an easy way of finding a solution that will be fair to all concerned, but I am ready to accept that more work needs to be done on this, and I submit to the


Committee that the appropriate time to do that will be after 1st April, 1963, when the new valuation lists are in force.

Mr. F. Harris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that, unfortunately, he does not give me a great deal of comfort by what he has just said, certainly so far as the Croydon ratepayers are concerned. He obviously recognises that we have a really good case. What applies to Croydon must apply to many other towns. It may apply to Guildford at the present moment. This is a problem of only £40,000 at the moment in Croydon, but that is equal to 2d. in the £ in the Croydon rates which the ratepayers as a whole, notably the domestic ratepayers, have to meet.
The Minister kindly says "After 1963 we will have another look at the matter." But I cannot see what his difficulty, basically, is, because there was a precedent, surely, in Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1958, which provided for showrooms occupied by gas boards to be rated separately. If the Minister recognises that Croydon and other towns are in this difficulty, why cannot we have a simple Measure to put the matter right, as I have suggested in the three Clauses?
In Croydon we are fast developing new office sites in a very big way. This is widely commented upon, certainly in the south of England. Unfortunately for us in some respects—in others, of course, we gain—along come the gas and electricity undertakings or the British Transport Commission and take large office blocks in these new buildings, and by their so doing we automatically lose some £40,00.

Mr. Nabarro: We lose much more than that.

Mr. Harris: I agree; my hon. Friend no doubt has a better case in his own district, but at the moment I am concerned with the Croydon ratepayers. Believe me, they are very touchy on the point, and rightly so.
Contrary to what the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have said from time to time, I firmly believe that the rates will go on up and up. I cannot see that stopping. Therefore, this is a bigger problem than we all seem to want to face up to at the moment. This is a real tax. If we put Income Tax anomalies right, why should we not put right anomalies in the rating tax? This comes out of the pockets of everybody. At

least twice a year, some 13 million people pay rates, and this is a very direct burden on them.
Surely the fair thing to do is to face up to the problem. The Minister—this applies to the officials in many ways—will not tackle the problem. Of course the A.M.C. is not fully on our side because so many other authorities might lose just a little in the adjustment. I can see that point; but why should Croydon subsidise all the other local authorities?

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harris: It is not fair, surely. If we are progressive enough to put up new buildings and offices in Croydon, why should we let them to the detriment of the Croydon ratepayers? Why should business houses pay their full whack of the rates when this situation is allowed to apply?
I appreciate that the Minister says "We will look at it", but I honestly ask him to bear in mind that many hon. Members do not take very much interest in rating because it is a very complicated subject and it is sometimes very difficult to put these arguments over. But it is quite unfair and unrealistic that we do not face up to the facts of the case. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that we in Croydon honestly feel very strongly about this, and I invite him to come to Croydon and talk to our ratepayers and find that out for himself.

Mr. Brooke: I am not for a moment questioning that the ratepayers of Croydon feel that they have a legitimate grievance. I am addressing myself to the three new Clauses that my hon. Friend has put on the Order Paper, and in the course of my remarks I had to add that if they were accepted—this is certainly so in the case of the third, relating to the British Transport Commission—all the other rating areas which had Transport Commission hereditaments within their boundaries would find themselves most unfairly treated by the operation of my hon. Friend's proposals. [Interruption.] Yes, most unfairly. I say that because they will be taking out of the total value of the undertaking certain large blocks and leaving in the remainder an unfairly small portion. Therefore, it is not possible to do justice by accepting any of


the three proposed new Clauses, but, at what will be the most suitable time, this whole matter will be looked at afresh.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee, but my right hon. Friend now says, with respect, that everyone recognises the fairness of the case in these new Clauses and that the principle is accepted. Cannot they, therefore, be redrafted? Apparently they cannot and instead he turns to the Croydon ratepayers and says, in effect, "Well, after 1963, when the valuation lists come out again, we will have another look". How much longer have we to wait? I have been in this House for thirteen years, and it seems that we have got to wait twenty before there is even the prospect of anything being done.
So far as the British Transport Commission is concerned, am I not right in saying—and this partly answered the point which was made about shipping—that the Commission enjoys a considerable measure of derating? I say that because when the assessment was brought down from 75 to 50 per cent. for business premises the Commission, I am given to understand, was not so adjusted in its valuations; and that is the position still. Therefore, it enjoys a considerable measure of derating.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is quoting something which is an echo. The most valuable of all these nationalised hereditaments are in the electricity industry; in the Croydon "A" and "B" power stations. They are largely derated still. They have not been adjusted since the time when private enterprise hereditaments were fully rated; but my hon. Friend should quote electricity and not the railways.

Mr. Mitchison: Who has the Floor at the moment?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Gentleman has.

Mr. Harris: I am stressing the Transport Commission because I think it is a fact that it enjoys a measure of de-rating which is not in full accord with business generally, even taking into consideration the reduction from 75 to 50 per cent.

Mr. Brooke: The answer is that industrial derating never applied to the public utilities of gas and electricity. It did apply to the railways and the canals; it applied to freight transport.

Mr. Harris: Of course, but what I say is that when we reduced the amount from 75 to 50 per cent.—and I was a great advocate of this—it was not adjusted on the valuations of the Transport Commission properties. That is my point, and I say that it has a measure of comparison which is unfair to industry at present. I regret it, but I cannot withdraw these three new Clauses. I feel that the Minister recognises the problem to the full, but to put it on one side and then say, "Let Croydon worry about it in a few years' time while Croydon men and women have to take additional rates out of their pockets" is wrong. It would not be so if these premises were properly rated.

Mr. Mitchison: May I say that the Parliamentary Secretary let the working party cat out of the bag when he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) saying that there was to be a working party? My letter to the Minister was merely designed to give the animal a little more of a public airing than it would otherwise have had, and I am glad that that is going to happen. I think it is the right way of tackling this matter. I wish to defend the right hon. Gentleman against the upholders of Conservative principles, or, to quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words, alleged Conservative principles and against the weakness—

Mr. Brooke: There are no weaknesses in Conservative principles.

Mr. Mitchison: I entirely accept that. They are, of course, made of solid wood, and there is no room for weakness in them. They never change. They are always the same, whatever may happen to the world outside. There is, however, as I think even the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree, a certain difference of interpretation, and I therefore support respectfully the right hon. Gentleman in saying that it is no use trying to tackle this problem in bits and pieces. It is much better to tackle the whole thing sensibly and without recourse to alleged Conservative principles.

Mr. Frederick Gough: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) spoke about filibustering a few minutes ago. I have no intention whatever of filibustering. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) has raised a serious doubt in my mind, and I should very much like my right hon. Friend to resolve it. I understand that, as the Bill now stands without the new Clauses proposed by my hon. Friend, if there is a large office building in Croydon or any other town and that building is occupied by the administrative staff of a nationalised industry, automatically the local authority does not receive rates in respect of it.
Crawley New Town is in my constituency. My right hon. Friend has, very rightly, been doing his best to encourage the erection and occupation of office buildings in that new town. Let us suppose that the Crawley Development Corporation or the local authority puts up a very large new office building in Crawley. If that building is leased to a nationalised industry, will the rates on that building go to the local authority or not? If they will not, that will not be a good inducement to bring office staff into the new town, which would be extremely desirable, as I think both sides of the Committee will accept. If I am right in my present understanding that the rates will not go to the local authority in such a case, then I shall add my voice to that of my hon. Friends the Member for Croydon, North-West and the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and say that we should not wait until 1963.

Mr. Nabarro: The working party is to take until 1963. Then we shall have to have legislation in the House to change the position. My right hon. Friend will not deny that there must be new legislation. We know the speed with which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government works in rating matters. It would take two years after 1963. That will take us into the lifetime of the next Parliament. My right hon. Friend might not be there. I might not be there.

The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) was making the speech.

Mr. Nabarro: But he gave way to me, Sir Gordon. I wanted to make an intervention.

The Chairman: Interventions should be short.

Mr. Nabarro: Then may I make it short?

The Chairman: The hon. Member has already made his intervention. Mr. Gough.

Mr. Gough: I am sorry, Sir Gordon, but I have begun to lose my train of thought. I regard the point as extremely important. If my understanding of the law at the moment is correct, perhaps my words will be heard in Crawley and other new towns so that, when we do have new large office buildings erected, which I hope we shall, they will be occupied by private enterprise and not by nationalised industries.

Mr. Nabarro: My argument was somewhat prejudiced, Sir Gordon, by your gentle reminder that I was making an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough). I apologise for the length of my intervention. I want to add to what I said in the course of that intervention. It is undeniably the fact, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has written to the Minister concerning the whole of this complex problem of the rating of nationalised industry hereditaments—

Mr. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I am not giving way for the moment, until I have finished my sentence—and the working party covers in its inquiries all forms of nationalised industry hereditaments, including the offices and administrative centres of the electricity boards referred to in the second of the three new Clauses.

Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. He so often gets his facts wrong. Farnworth is not Farnborough.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not say Farnborough. I had a long conversation with the hon. Member for Farnworth yesterday on this topic and he explained to me that he could not be here today to argue his own case. The analogy


between Kearsley, in his constituency in Lancashire, Stourport-on-Severn, in my constituency in Worcestershire, and Croydon, my hon. Friend's constituency, is perfectly clear.
What I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is that the inquiries of the working party will certainly last until the date he indicated, 1963. Then, we must have new legislation if the present position of the rating of nationalised industry hereditaments is to be amended. That takes us at least four years ahead. The question I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether his case in response to these new Clauses is that we should all wait four years for these gross injustices to be remedied. Is it, or is it not, the correct interpretation that we should wait another four years at least before they are put right? If that is the position, my hon. Friends and myself should register our disapproval this evening of my right hon. Friend's rejoinder to our representations by appropriate action.

Mr. Hugh Rees: I have sympathy with the Clauses, but the reasons for which they have been put forward have been a complete smokescreen. This is a Rating and Valuation Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) keeps on talking about derating. What he fails to realise is that a nationalised or public utility undertaking is valued on the effective capital value of the parts of it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) starts severing it, as he proposes to do with these Clauses, he will get little bits and pieces which are quite incapable of valuation, because their only value appertains so long as they are part of an integrated unit. That is the reason why a public utility undertaking has to be valued on a cumulo basis.
The statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister that he will set up a working party to look into this whole matter is a great step forward.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friends may say "No," but when they see what work the

working party will have to do to unscramble the situation and sort it out, they will realise that hasty alteration now will provide greater difficulties in the years ahead.

Mr. F. Harris: My hon. Friend said that I put down the new Clauses as a smokescreen for what I intended. He has no ground for making that comment. It is most unfair and is not true.

Mr. Rees: I did not say that my hon. Friend put down the new Clauses as a smokescreen. I said that his arguments were a smokescreen.

Mr. Harris: That is quite untrue. If my hon. Friend will be kind enough to read HANSARD when it is printed, he will find what I said. If that is my hon. Friend's view, why was the showrooms anomaly put right in the 1958 Act, to which I have referred? How can it be a smokescreen if, when new buildings are put up in Croydon, the Transport Commission and the gas and electricity undertakings take them on and we lose £40,000 in rates? How can there be a smokescreen about that? It is just nonsense to talk like that, and I do not take back for one single moment anything I said.

Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause.— [VALUATION OF HEREDITAMENTS WHICH ARE PARTLY OCCUPIED.]

(1) If it appears to the rating authority that part of a hereditament included in the valuation list is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the authority may request the valuation officer to apportion the rateable value of the hereditament between the occupied and unoccupied parts; and if the apportionment made by the valuation officer is agreed by the authority and the occupier, then, as from—

(a) the date upon which the hereditament became partly occupied; or
(b) the commencement of the rate period in which the request was made,

whichever is the later, until any of the unoccupied part is reoccupied or a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament takes effect under this section, the value apportioned to the occupied part shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the value ascribed to the hereditament in the valuation list.


(2) This section shall not apply in relation to any hereditament of which the owner (within the meaning of section eleven of the Act of 1925) is rated or has undertaken to pay the rates instead of the occupier, but shall apply in relation to a hereditament the owner of which has undertaken to collect on behalf of the rating authority the rates due from the occupier.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause is in fulfilment of an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) who in the Standing Committee suggested that the Government would do well to look at a Section in a Birmingham Act providing a convenient way of splitting the valuation of a hereditament, part of which becomes vacant but for which the vacancy is expected to be temporary, by a shorter method than the rather long-winded, complex method of making a proposal and claim for a void for that part of the hereditament which is temporarily vacant. This new Clause achieves this object in a rather shorter method than that in the Birmingham Act, and I will explain it briefly to the House.
The position is particularly appropriate where, for instance, in a shop and office combined or a shop and dwellinghouse combined, either the shop or dwellinghouse is temporarily vacant, or in an office block rated as a single hereditament where one or more suites of offices are temporarily vacant. Under the present position generally the ratepayer who wishes to claim the void allowance has to make a proposal establishing a new hereditament for the empty part, and then has to claim the void allowance when that new hereditament has been established as a separate rateable entity. All this takes a considerable amount of time, and the new Clause proposes to establish a short cut.
The House will see that the new Clause leaves the initiative in the matter to the rating authority. Of course, any ratepayer can suggest to the rating authority that a case exists for using the short cut. If the rating authority will not use the short cut proposed, then the ratepayer is not prejudiced, because he can use, as now, the present proposal procedure. If the rating authority is satisfied

that the part empty is only likely to be empty temporarily, then it can use the procedure laid down here. The procedure laid down is that the valuation officer apportions the hereditament as to part occupied, as to part unoccupied, and he bases the valuation upon the part which is still occupied. His valuation, to be effective by this short-cut procedure, must be agreed by both the rating authority and by the occupier, and if all parties agree that valuation proposed by the valuation officer, then the rates are paid on the value apportioned for the occupied part.
Subsection (2) of the Clause denies the use of this Clause to an owner who is compulsorily compounded for rates or to an owner who voluntarily undertakes to pay rates and to bear the risk of any vacancy of any of the hereditament, but the owner who voluntarily undertakes only to collect the rates and undertakes no risk of emptiness of any of the hereditament can make use of the Clause.
As a corollary of this, later in the Bill it is proposed to repeal that part of the Birmingham Act which in a rather longer fashion achieved the same object. My right hon. Friend has consulted the City of Birmingham and I understand that it is agreeable to this.

Mr. Mitchison: When this undertaking was given in Committee on behalf of the Government we regarded the proposed new Clause as a sensible and useful piece of machinery and we so regard it still.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(AS TO RATING OF PETROL TANKS.)

Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1925 or in any other enactment, plant comprising a tank or tanks in which petroleum spirit (as defined in the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928) is kept (hereinafter in this section called a "petrol tank") shall not, for the purpose of making or revising valuation lists under Part II of the Act of 1925 and Part III of the Local Government Act, 1948, as amended by the Act of 1955, be deemed to be part of the hereditament in or on which it has been placed by reason only of the fact that such petrol tank has, in order to comply with the regulations or requirements of the local authority concerned (or of any other authority) for the time being in force with respect


to the installation of petrol tanks, been installed in such a manner as to make the removal thereof from the hereditament, or to another situation in the hereditament, impracticable.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Sir K. Joseph: Is it my hon. Friend's intention to seek permission to take with the new Clause the Amendment in Clause 5, page 4, line 23, at end insert:
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall preclude the Minister from making an order thereunder in respect of any item or part of an item to which paragraph (a) of this subsection would apply but for the fact that by reason of compliance with the regulations or requirements of any local authority (or of any other authority) relative to the installation thereof its removal from one hereditament, or situation in a hereditament, to another has been rendered impracticable.
It seems to me to go with it.

Mr. Page: I think it would be convenient, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to take them together.
I will deal first with the new Clause. It is concerned with the rating of petrol tanks—those tanks which are below ground at petrol filling stations. The Clause is not on any fundamental rating point. It does not seek to introduce any new exemptions to rateability or to derate petrol tanks for the first time. Until recently petrol tanks at filling stations were never considered to be rateable. It is only due to a recent decision and almost by legal accident that petrol tanks have come to be considered as rateable. Like any other tanks, petrol tanks come under Section 24 of the Third Schedule of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and they constitute plant or machinery of the class mentioned in paragraph 4 of that Schedule which are neither a building or structure, nor in the nature of a building or structure.
Petrol tanks are not a structure because they are not installed as structures. They are brought to a site ready-made, or prefabricated and they are lowered into a brick or concrete chamber. The gap between the tank and the walls of the chamber is filled with dry sand so that the tank is merely resting in the chamber. Installed in that fashion, tanks were never rated and for years no one

ever thought that they should be, until four or five years ago when someone in the Inland Revenue Rating Valuation and Rating Department thought that he might have a go and get away with rating them.
Litigation was started and the case went all the way up to the House of Lords. That was the case of Shell-Mex and B.P. v. Holyoak which was heard in the House of Lords in 1959. Their Lordships confirmed that petrol tanks were not rateable. One might have thought that that would have finished the matter and that thereafter petrol tanks would be treated like any other non-structural tank and would not be rated.
Furthermore, when class 4 of the plant and machinery list was revised as recently as 1960 by Statutory Instrument 122, the Plant and Machinery Rating Order, 1960, for tanks which did not form part of the structure, the exemption from rating was continued. No effort was made in that recent Statutory Instrument to legislate for the rating of petrol tanks. No effort was made to revoke the decision in the case of Shell-Mex and B.P. v. Holyoak. Unfortunately, however, the tanks were swept into rateability by a sort of sideswipe from local authorities.
It came about in this way. To store petrol one needs a licence under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, and one obtains that licence from a local authority. The local authority may attach to a petroleum spirit licence such conditions as it thinks expedient. It can add any conditions it chooses about the storage of petrol and the safe keeping of petrol when it issues a licence. In setting out those conditions, local authorities act on the advice of the central Government, and in this case, on the advice of the Home Office.
In 1957 the Home Office issued a model code of principles of construction and licensing conditions under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928. In relation to petrol filling stations this code recommended local authorities that in future, before giving a petroleum spirit licence they should see that each tank, with the exception of the manhole opening, should be surrounded by fine concrete not less than 9 inches in thickness, as opposed to what had been the previous normal practice with petrol tanks of letting them rest in dry sand.
Practically all local authorities which are petroleum spirit licensing authorities have adopted that model code so that tanks now have to be installed in concrete instead of, as previously, in dry sand in a brick chamber. Back to the fray rushed the gentleman from the Inland Revenue Rating and Valuation Department. The model code had given him just what he wanted. The tanks fixed in concrete instead of being surrounded by dry sand had now become structures and could be assessed for rates. In December, 1960, the Lands Tribunal, in the case of Shell-Mex and B.P. v. James decided that a tank embedded in concrete was a rateable structure. One can hardly complain of that decision by the Tribunal. I should think it is quite right in law, but there has been no change in the character or purpose of the article which is being rated, the petrol tank.
It was an underground tank for a petrol-filling station before the model code was issued by the Home Office; it is an underground tank for a petrol-filling station now. Previously it was not rated; now it is to be rated, not by any rating legislation but by reason of local authority licensing conditions. The new Clause endeavours to put the position back to that which it was before the decision of the Lands Tribunal as recently as December, 1960.
11.30 p.m.
May I now mention the Amendment which we are discussing with this new Clause? It may be that there are other installations similar to petrol tanks which can be caught by byelaws of a local authority, by some conditions which a local authority may impose on some licences or by some directions which a local authority has power to give. Such installations may be caught for rating purposes in that way and not by rating legislation, so the Amendment to Clause 5 would enable the Minister to deal with such a case by order.
This proposal is not one of the old chestnuts of rating reform endeavours. It is a new point that has arisen only out of the decision in 1960 which I have mentioned. It is new, but it is intended merely to restore the position as it was before December, 1960, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will now put that position right.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has taken his new Clause before the Amendment, but I think that he will agree that, in fact, the Amendment goes wider because it gives my right hon. Friend power by order to extend the application that he is seeking specifically to apply in the case of his new Clause only to petrol tanks.
The combination of these two proposals by my hon. Friend would, in fact, extend my right hon. Friend's power under Clause 5 to exclude from rate-ability under class 4 in the Third Schedule of the 1925 Act plant and machinery which satisfy tests (a) and (b) in Clause 5. Clause 5 gives my right hon. Friend power to exempt from rating the plant and machinery which comes under class 4 in the Third Schedule of the 1925 Act but which satisfies the tests in two ways. The two tests are, first, that it is the practice of the trade to move the particular item—the plant or machinery—and, secondly, that the plant or machinery comes within certain specified weight, volume and dimension limits. My hon. Friend suggests that this should be extended by exempting, also by order by my right hon. Friend, items that conform with those two tests, even though they cannot in fact be moved because of the order of some authority which has required them to be fixed immovably.
I am sorry to have to restate, however briefly, the whole principles of rating, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the rating system is based on charging rates on land, buildings and structures, and also on plant and machinery which is or is of the nature of a building or structure. Clause 5, as in the Bill, is not intended to break that principle at all. The intention of Clause 5, responding to the majority opinion of the Ritson Committee, is simply to give certainty to industry as a whole as to the freedom from rates of small movable items of plant and machinery.
To extend this to immovable items would be a breach of principle because it would exempt from rating items that are by hypothesis in the nature of a building or a structure. Further to distinguish, as my hon. Friend suggests we should distinguish, between one immovable item and another according to the


reason for the immobility would be unworkable and indefensible.
Let us consider for a moment that an "authority"—I put the word in quotation marks—requires any particular item to be rendered immovable. Normally, an authority makes such a requirement only in a situation where most prudent users would already have decided to make the item immovable anyway. It is only when some users are not prudent, and might fail to make the item immovable for safety reasons or whatever other reasons prudence would dictate, that the authority steps in and makes regulations.
The Amendment to Clause 5 could, therefore, work most capriciously. In cases where movability was decided on by the trade without compulsion, the item would be rateable. In the case where, if irresponsible members omitted to adopt the good practices of the rest—so that regulation by the authority became necessary—the item would escape rating. The task of deciding in a particular case whether movement has been rendered impracticable
…by reason of compliance with the regulations or requirements of any local authority (or of any other authority)…
or because every member has recognised the necessity for the precaution which the authority has imposed, would be, generally, quite impossible. The policy would be unworkable. The valuation officer and the court would have to decide whether, if movement were practicable, it would be the practice of the trade to provide for movability. Again, to decide what the practice would be if the circumstances were different would be impossible. It could hardly amount to more than an assertion and a counter-assertion.
I should add, in some comfort to my hon. Friend that, if it is the practice of the trade to move an item from place to place, it may not be relevant for this test in Clause 5, where a particular example of that item in a particular area is not in fact moved or cannot be moved, to be applied. The result may be that,

if the majority of items of that kind are seldom, if ever, moved, or are generally movable but never moved, an individual item which is sometimes moved will not escape rate liability, because it will not, by hypothesis, be the practice of the trade to move items of that kind.
My hon. Friend has based much of his proposal on the petrol tank case he mentioned. That is a question for the interpretation of the courts, but I would suggest that, in that case, the petrol tanks were considered by the courts to have lost their identity as petrol tanks and to have merged with the concrete blocks with which they were placed. But that is a matter for the courts.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the novelty of his proposals, but they would prejudice a number of rights in general. They would go far further than Clause 5, which is only meant to reassure industry that small, movable plant will be exempt from rating, and would base rateability on unjust and objectionable premises. My right hon. Friend cannot advise the House to accept the Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw it.

Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
We have completed two new Clauses on the Report stage, and have got through eight pages of Amendments. There are another four pages to go. We could not complete them without sitting unreasonably late, and, if the House agrees, I suggest that those of us who have been concerned in the Rating and Valuation Bill should be free to go home.

Mr. Mitchison: I feel sure that the House is as much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman as I am.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PIGS (GUARANTEED PRICES)

11.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 508), dated 20th March, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.
My right hon. Friend in his statement to the House on this year's Annual Review said that if we were to get a greater stability in the market for pigs we must somehow reduce the impact of the notorious pig cycle. Hitherto our main instrument has been that of price. But experience has shown that that has not been effective because it has generally been a pretty blunt instrument when applied at yearly intervals after a Review. This is an example of being wise after the event.
That is why this year we proposed a new arrangement whereby the basic guaranteed price determined after the Review would be increased or decreased automatically during the year according to whether fewer or more pigs were in prospect—an attempt to be wise before the event. I think that that proposal was generally welcomed.
The Order now before the House is a procedural one, enabling the arrangements for this flexible guarantee to be put into operation, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: One of the very few sensible parts of the Price Review which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced was this attempt to break the pig cycle, and I think from that point of view that this is most sensible.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LIVESTOCK REARING LAND (IMPROVEMENT GRANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Livestock Rearing Land Improvement Grants (Increase of Aggregate Maximum) Order, 1961, dated 20th March, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Vane.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could say exactly what this Order does?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): Certainly. I think that this Order is even simpler than the last one. As the House will remember, under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946, 1951 and 1956, money was made available—£25 million—with a possible addition of another £2 million for payment as grants to supplement the cost of carrying out comprehensive and approved schemes for the rehabilitation of hill farms.
We have now arrived at the stage where we have practically committed ourselves to the £25 million allowed under the Acts and it seems that it is the right, traditional and sane thing to ask the House to give us the authority for the additional £2 million provided in the Acts.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — VISAS (JAPANESE CITIZENS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: On 30th March last I gave notice in the House that I proposed to raise a protest against the Home Secretary's refusal on that date to grant visas to five Japanese citizens to enter the United Kingdom.
What are the facts in the case? Five Japanese citizens wished to come to Britain on that date, Maundy Thursday, as a result of an invitation which had been extended by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in this country to the so-called Japanese Council against the Atom Bomb in Tokyo for the purpose of witnessing and taking part in the fourth Aldermaston march.
I know that only a minority of Members in the House at present support the aims and objects of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but I think that it is generally recognised that this body is a reputable one led by distinguished citizens in the country which commands wide and increasing support and that the Aldermaston marches have come to be recognised as a democratic, useful and vigorous protest against the insanity of nuclear war.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was not responsible for the choice of these citizens to come here to represent the Japanese Council against the Atom Bomb, nor is it in any way responsible for the policies and activities of that body in Japan. But I believe that that Council commands considerable popular support among the people of Japan. The Japanese citizens who made application to come here for the purpose of representing the movement against nuclear weapons in their country were Mr. Fukushima, an agricultural specialist, Mr. Hiragaki, a member of the Teachers' Trade Union of Japan, Mr. Wada, of the Municipal Workers' Trade Union, Mr. Araki, lecturer in pathology, and Mr. Yamaguchi, himself a radiation victim of the atom bomb that fell on Nagasaki.
I am informed that these citizens came across the world and applied for their visas to enter this country at the British Embassy in Vienna in the last week of February, and therefore in good time to enable them to get their visas and travel to this country on 30th March. I believe, also that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament informed the Home Office that for the short stay of these visitors the Campaign was prepared to be entirely responsible for them financially.
I must make it plain that I do not know any of these gentlemen personally, nor do I know of their political affiliations, but that is not the issue in this case. My belief is that it was legitimate and desirable that these Japanese representatives should come to Britain at that time for the purpose of taking part in a great democratic protest against the insanity of nuclear weapons and against their spread, and that for the Home Secretary to exclude them from this country was an arbitrary, foolish and reactionary act.
Since raising this protest I have received a number of letters from different parts of the country criticising my action and saying, "Why do you want these Japanese visitors to come here? Do not you recollect the terrible atrocities committed by the Japanese in the Second World War?". I entirely sympathise with those who have bitter feelings about the Japanese aggression and atrocities in the Second World War and the period leading up to it. But whilst not forgetting

these past experiences, surely we should do everything possible to encourage and welcome those Japanese citizens—and citizens of all countries—who are opposed to the revival of militarism and imperialism in any form. We should recall with some humiliation the fact that Japan is the only nation that has suffered the atrocity of atomic bombing itself; indeed, it was for those reasons that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in this country extended this invitation.
It is no use the Joint Under-Secretary's arguing that aliens should not come to Britain to participate in demonstrations of this kind. Over the Easter weekend, when the fourth Aldermaston march took place, more than 500 foreigners came here, observed and took part in that great protest march. They came from Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland and Greece. It was only the five representatives from the only country in the world which has actually suffered the agony of atomic bombing who were excluded by the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary's power to grant or withhold visas for aliens to visit this country is, we know, a dictatorial power, and he is not responsible to this House for giving his reasons. This position, against which hon. Members have constantly protested, seems to me to make it the more important that we should protest when the power is used unreasonably and in a manner calculated to create international ill-will and to cause friction.
However other Governments may behave in this respect, however unreasonable they may be about the granting or withholding of visas, surely this country should seek to set an example politically of non-discrimination in this matter? Surely this country should set an example of welcoming reputable citizens from other countries to come here to meet our people, to see our way of life, and to gain the experience of participating for brief periods in our democratic movements?

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am not a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but I acknowledge the sincere convictions and conscientious motives of the large number


of reputable citizens who do support that Campaign. I therefore feel that my hon. Friend has raised a prima facie case which calls for an answer from the Home Office.
I should like to add that the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse entry to these five visitors from Japan coincided with the revelation in the Press of the serious espionage trial which attracted a great deal of attention, and today we have learnt of the equally serious, perhaps more serious, confession of Mr. Blake and the exemplary and indeed unique sentence he received.
In those circumstances, I think that one can understand the concern of the Home Office about security arrangements and steps for taking more measures to prevent espionage, but I hope that we shall not find that those very necessary steps in that direction will lead the Home Office into any panic action with regard to placing unnecessary restrictions on foreign visitors who desire to come here for temporary and quite legitimate purposes. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he is aware that quite different considerations apply. While we all hope that the Home Office will take energetic measures against espionage and will tighten up security arrangements, we also hope that we shall still be able to adopt our traditional attitude to foreign visitors.
It is because of those two aspects of the problem that I think that my hon. Friend has raised a matter which, calls for a very serious reply from the Home Office.

11.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) for so courteously giving me precise notice of the issues that he would raise and for the great brevity and clarity with which he raised them. I hope that I shall be able to give him an answer which will convince him and the rest of the House.
In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I would have hoped that I had no need whatever to assure him that the decision made by my right hon. Friend with regard to the

five visas for the Japanese citizens had nothing whatever to do with the announcement of the findings in the espionage case at the Old Bailey before Easter. The two matters were entirely unconnected. The decision was not in any sense based upon what had happened in that case.
I am able to assure both hon. Gentlemen that we pride ourselves on our admission of foreigners to this country, and that can be proved by looking at the statistics published recently of the admission of aliens last year, showing the vast numbers who came here and the very small numbers who were refused admission. I grant, of course, that in addition to those statistics there is the further consideration of refusal of visas to people who never even attempted to come here after the visas had been refused, but, after all, the numbers of those, taking the visa countries of the world together, are not so very great. We certainly intend to maintain our tradition of hospitality, and, indeed, I think that we can reasonably pride ourselves on the fact that those citizens of countries which do not enjoy democratic freedom as we know it have a great deal to learn by coming here.
As to the decision to refuse the visas to the five Japanese in this case, it was, as I shall show, fully in accordance with a policy established in 1950 by the then Labour Government, and in accordance with decisions since taken in pursuance of that policy by both the Labour and the Conservative Governments. These decisions, I must stress, were in no way directed against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or the Aldermaston march. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme pointed out, we granted admission to several hundred people from nine different countries who came for the two marches. There were no refusals of entry to nationals of non-visa countries to attend those marches.
The policy governing the decision was originally introduced by the Labour Government in 1950 as a measure of defence against the Communist so-called "peace" propaganda machine. On 17th July, 1951, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who was then the Under-Secretary of State at the Home


Office, described the World Peace Movement as
no more…than an instrument of Soviet foreign policy, designed to stir up resistance to the Western Defence Agreement and the Atlantic Pact.
He said:
It is no more than a fifth column movement run from Moscow.* The members owe allegiance to Russia and not to their own countries. Their tactics are to persuade the workers in the democracies to refuse to make arms, and at the same time they urge the workers in the Communist countries to speed up the production of munitions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c.1205.]
He added, however, that it was in accordance with our policy to admit delegates from Communist countries to attend various conferences in this country. I speak for the present Government when I say that we certainly do not exclude, and do not wish to discourage, Communists as such from visiting the United Kingdom. In this particular case, we are not dealing with the open promulgation of Communist doctrine by people and organisations whose attachment is evident. We are concerned here with those bodies called Communist "front" organisations which seek, by camouflaging their true aims and intentions under artificial and misrepresentative titles, to enlist the support of ordinary people throughout the world by appealing for peace, friendship, and the general improvement of world conditions.
The World Peace Council is such a body, and foreigners coming here on its business, or to attend meetings organised by it, or by other similar bodies which are part of the organised Communist propaganda machine, have been forbidden for the past ten years or so to enter this country. Advantage is sometimes taken by these "peace front" organisations of bona fide and unexceptionable invitations issued by organisations or individuals here who were unaware of the true objective of their visitors, or the real direction of their activitives, or, by others who did not know or did not care whether they were Communist or not. In other words, I make the distinction between ignorance and apathy on the part of the bodies in this country who issue the invitations.
The host as in this case of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, is

sometimes a body whose direction is quite independent of the Communist peace propaganda machine but whose aims and ideals and activities offer a respectable platform for representatives of Communist "front" organisations. In different parts of the world many organisations genuinely originating with a desire for peace have, sooner or later, come under Communist influence, then under Communist control, and have finally become instruments of the Communist propaganda front.
An instance of this is the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, known as Gensuikyo. At first, this body was genuinely pacifist and was so regarded by the Japanese Government; but in recent years it has become closely connected with the World Peace Council, and is following its direction. As long ago as July, 1959, the Japanese Minister of Justice said that a conference organised by this Council had received considerable financial help from the Soviet Union and from Communist China. The Hiroshima Prefectural Assembly, which had previously subsidised the conference, discontinued its subsidy in 1959 as an expression of public disapproval of the political activities of the Council.
The important thing about the case of these five Japanese is that they are members of that organisation; in fact, three of them are executive directors of it. They first applied for United Kingdom visas on 8th February in Tokio, the stated purpose of their visit being to give lectures against atomic and hydrogen bombs. They were refused their visas, and then stated that they would apply for them when they got to Copenhagen in the course of a lecture and propaganda tour which they were then starting. The next thing we heard was that on 28th February our visa officer in Vienna was approached for visas for them to come here in response to an invitation from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Then, on 22nd March, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme wrote to the Home Secretary asking for visas to be granted to the five men, but, in accordance with the policy which I have mentioned, my right hon. Friend refused them.
On 30th March, the hon. Member asked his Private Notice Question, and in reply


to a supplementary question my right hon. Friend said:
Large numbers of foreigners are expected to arrive and join in this event, and no objection is made to their admittance to this country, subject to the normal requirement of individual acceptability. Certain powers have been conferred upon me and on occasion they have been exercised. I have decided that I have to exercise them in this case.
In answer to another supplementary question, my right hon. Friend added:
I certainly do not wish to prejudice the position in Japan or the views of Japan upon nuclear weapons or anything else. I simply have to decide this matter in relation to the acceptability of these individuals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1961; Vol. 637, c.1535–6.]
I think that the position is abundantly plain. I have gone as far as I could possibly go in the circumstances in explaining

the reasons for our decision, but I have explained those reasons.
In conclusion, I stress that we welcome Japanese visitors and, indeed, visitors from any country. Our policy is not directed against the admission of Communists as such, nor do we wish people to be prevented from taking part with our own people in the free expression of political views; but we are not prepared to let propagandists come to this country from anywhere merely to help the Communists conduct their so-called peace propaganda, the object of which is to get others to disarm while international Communism refuses to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.